Lupita Saluja vs. Dggi And Anr

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court found that the suppliers had valid PAN cards and bank accounts, and their GST registrations were granted after verification by the respondents. The suppliers had also filed requisite GSTR returns, and ITC was credited to the companies' accounts based on these compliances. The Court noted that the goods supplied by the suppliers were sent to ICD, Tughlakabad, and then exported, indicating that goods were indeed purchased. The Court also observed that the e-way bill system, linked to the Regional Transport Authority, and subsequent checks by customs authorities at ICD Tughlakabad, including the issuance of Export General Manifest (EGM), provided multiple layers of verification for the transportation of goods. The Court found that these aspects had not been investigated by the respondents. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's husband, who was allegedly more involved in the company's day-to-day affairs, had been granted regular bail, while the petitioner had been released on the same day she and her husband were called for investigation. Considering these facts, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required. The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and to cooperate with the investigation.

Facts

The petitioner, Lupita Saluja, sought anticipatory bail in an investigation by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and another respondent. The DGGI alleged that the petitioner and her husband created five bogus export firms, fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 45 crores using fake invoices and fabricated information. Suppliers were allegedly non-existent, and transporters did not deliver goods as claimed. The petitioner, a director in these firms, allegedly received approximately Rs. 279 crores in her personal bank accounts. The petitioner argued that funds transferred to her personal account were for earning interest and were returned to company accounts, with income tax paid on accrued interest. She claimed not to have siphoned off any money and that her salary was significantly lower than alleged. The petitioner contended that the companies made genuine exports and availed ITC as per Section 16 of the CGST Act, with suppliers filing returns and tax liabilities auto-populating in GSTR 2A.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to the investigation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC and creation of bogus firms? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the funds transferred to her personal account were for earning interest and were subsequently returned to the company accounts, with income tax duly paid on the interest. She asserted that no money was siphoned off and that her salary was significantly lower than alleged. She further contended that the companies made genuine exports and availed ITC in compliance with Section 16 of the CGST Act, as suppliers filed returns and tax liabilities were reflected in GSTR 2A. The petitioner also highlighted that her husband, who was allegedly more involved in day-to-day affairs, was granted regular bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was actively involved in the financial affairs of the companies and was aware of the misdeeds to claim GST refunds. They alleged non-cooperation with the investigation and that the petitioner was absconding since her husband's arrest. The respondents also stated that searches were conducted after obtaining due approval and under relevant provisions of law, and that prior writ petitions filed by the petitioner did not grant any stay.