Aditya Gupta S/O Arjun Gupta vs. Government Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail petition filed by the petitioner. The primary reasoning for dismissal was the opposition by the respondent, who highlighted that similar bail petitions filed by co-accused in the same case had already been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court. The respondent's submission that the petitioner, along with co-accused, had engaged in creating fake firms and making fraudulent entries to illegally claim input tax credit was accepted as a strong ground against granting bail. The Court found no sufficient grounds to deviate from the previous orders concerning the co-accused and thus denied bail to the petitioner. No specific provisions of the CGST Act were explicitly discussed in relation to the bail application itself, beyond referencing the sections under which the offences were registered.

Facts

The petitioner, Aditya Gupta, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The petition arises from a case initiated by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, concerning alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (h), (j), and (k) read with Sub-Section 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims he has been falsely implicated and that his alleged role was to assist co-accused in committing the offence. The DGGI alleges that the petitioner, along with co-accused, created fake firms and made fraudulent entries to illegally claim input tax credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in connection with the offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the allegations of creating fake firms and making fake entries for wrongful availment of input tax credit? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely involved in the case and that his alleged role was merely to assist co-accused in the commission of the offence. Respondent's (Government of India) Contention: The respondent opposed the bail petition, citing that bail petitions filed by co-accused Sandeep Kumar Agarwal and Ram Kumar Singh were dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court. The respondent asserted that all accused acted in connivance to create fake firms and make fake entries to illegally obtain input tax credit from the State. Therefore, no grounds for granting bail to the petitioner were made out.