Forged Rent Deed used before GST Dept: P&H HC says ‘Petitioner do not Deserve the Concession of Anticipatory Bail [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to two accused in a forgery case involving a fake rent deed submitted before the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department, holding that the petitioners' conduct “does not inspire confidence” and that such organised deceit requires a firm judicial response.

The FIR, lodged by complainant Kishan Singh, alleged that Indu Mahajan (petitioner No.1) and her sons Raghav and Rajat Mahajan submitted a forged, unsigned rent deed to the GST authorities to falsely show tenancy over a property located at Jawahar Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar.

The actual owner, Ashwani Sabharwal, denied ever executing or signing such a deed, and police enquiries reportedly confirmed forgery, fabrication and use of false documents before a government department.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

The petitioners argued that they had been lawful tenants since 2006 and that the FIR was a retaliatory move arising out of a civil dispute over possession. They contended that bank transfers showed rent payments and claimed that nothing incriminating needed recovery, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

However, the Court rejected this, noting that the alleged rent deed was “admittedly unsigned”, the bank transfers lacked any reference to rent, and the private ledger entries “carried no probative value” against the clear denial by the owner.

Justice Sumeet Goel said that the allegations were specific, serious, and supported by prima facie material, involving the creation of multiple forged documents, possible digital and physical copies, and the use of such documents to secure GST registration. Such acts, the Court noted, have far-reaching consequences on the public at large, and the gravity of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC justified thorough investigation.

Accordingly, the court ruled that “this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.”

In a recent ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to two accused in a forgery case involving a fake rent deed submitted before the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department, holding that the petitioners' conduct “does not inspire confidence” and that such organised deceit requires a firm judicial response.

The FIR, lodged by complainant Kishan Singh, alleged that Indu Mahajan (petitioner No.1) and her sons Raghav and Rajat Mahajan submitted a forged, unsigned rent deed to the GST authorities to falsely show tenancy over a property located at Jawahar Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar.

The actual owner, Ashwani Sabharwal, denied ever executing or signing such a deed, and police enquiries reportedly confirmed forgery, fabrication and use of false documents before a government department.

The petitioners argued that they had been lawful tenants since 2006 and that the FIR was a retaliatory move arising out of a civil dispute over possession. They contended that bank transfers showed rent payments and claimed that nothing incriminating needed recovery, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

However, the Court rejected this, noting that the alleged rent deed was “admittedly unsigned”, the bank transfers lacked any reference to rent, and the private ledger entries “carried no probative value” against the clear denial by the owner.

Justice Sumeet Goel said that the allegations were specific, serious, and supported by prima facie material, involving the creation of multiple forged documents, possible digital and physical copies, and the use of such documents to secure GST registration. Such acts, the Court noted, have far-reaching consequences on the public at large, and the gravity of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC justified thorough investigation.

Accordingly, the court ruled that “this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.”

In a recent ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to two accused in a forgery case involving a fake rent deed submitted before the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department, holding that the petitioners' conduct “does not inspire confidence” and that such organised deceit requires a firm judicial response.

The FIR, lodged by complainant Kishan Singh, alleged that Indu Mahajan (petitioner No.1) and her sons Raghav and Rajat Mahajan submitted a forged, unsigned rent deed to the GST authorities to falsely show tenancy over a property located at Jawahar Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar.

The actual owner, Ashwani Sabharwal, denied ever executing or signing such a deed, and police enquiries reportedly confirmed forgery, fabrication and use of false documents before a government department.

The petitioners argued that they had been lawful tenants since 2006 and that the FIR was a retaliatory move arising out of a civil dispute over possession. They contended that bank transfers showed rent payments and claimed that nothing incriminating needed recovery, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

However, the Court rejected this, noting that the alleged rent deed was “admittedly unsigned”, the bank transfers lacked any reference to rent, and the private ledger entries “carried no probative value” against the clear denial by the owner.

Justice Sumeet Goel said that the allegations were specific, serious, and supported by prima facie material, involving the creation of multiple forged documents, possible digital and physical copies, and the use of such documents to secure GST registration. Such acts, the Court noted, have far-reaching consequences on the public at large, and the gravity of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC justified thorough investigation.

Accordingly, the court ruled that “this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.”

In a recent ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to two accused in a forgery case involving a fake rent deed submitted before the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department, holding that the petitioners' conduct “does not inspire confidence” and that such organised deceit requires a firm judicial response.

The FIR, lodged by complainant Kishan Singh, alleged that Indu Mahajan (petitioner No.1) and her sons Raghav and Rajat Mahajan submitted a forged, unsigned rent deed to the GST authorities to falsely show tenancy over a property located at Jawahar Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar.

The actual owner, Ashwani Sabharwal, denied ever executing or signing such a deed, and police enquiries reportedly confirmed forgery, fabrication and use of false documents before a government department.

The petitioners argued that they had been lawful tenants since 2006 and that the FIR was a retaliatory move arising out of a civil dispute over possession. They contended that bank transfers showed rent payments and claimed that nothing incriminating needed recovery, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

However, the Court rejected this, noting that the alleged rent deed was “admittedly unsigned”, the bank transfers lacked any reference to rent, and the private ledger entries “carried no probative value” against the clear denial by the owner.

Justice Sumeet Goel said that the allegations were specific, serious, and supported by prima facie material, involving the creation of multiple forged documents, possible digital and physical copies, and the use of such documents to secure GST registration. Such acts, the Court noted, have far-reaching consequences on the public at large, and the gravity of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC justified thorough investigation.

Accordingly, the court ruled that “this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates