Smt. Himani Munjal W/O Shri Ankush Munjal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that no ground for granting bail to the petitioner was made out. The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which involved the creation of 35 fake firms and the issuance of invoices for tax amounts exceeding Rupees Ten Crores, facilitating GST evasion. The petitioner's admission of preparing these fake firms using fake IDs and documents for a fee, as recorded in her statement, was a significant factor. The Court noted that the case was still under investigation. Consequently, the Court found that the gravity of the alleged offences, including those under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (I) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, warranted the denial of bail. The operative direction was to dismiss the bail petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Himani Munjal, a Chartered Accountant, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail. The case pertains to alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (I) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, punishable under Section 132(1)(I) and (iv). The petitioner was arrested on August 3, 2018, in connection with Case File No. DGGI/JZU/INV/GR.I/GST/15/18-19/3255. She claims no FIR or complaint was filed against her and that she was not the beneficiary, having merely assisted in the investigation. The revenue contended that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, created 35 fake firms and issued invoices involving over Rupees Ten Crores in tax evasion. The petitioner allegedly admitted to preparing these fake firms using fake IDs and documents for a fee, which were then misused by others for GST evasion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of creating fake firms and facilitating GST evasion under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that there was no FIR or complaint against her, and she only became aware of the allegations through her arrest memo. She asserted that she was not the beneficiary of the alleged evasion and had fully cooperated with the investigation. She also highlighted her status as a young lady with a minor child to care for. Revenue's arguments: The revenue opposed the bail petition, citing the Commissioner's power to arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They contended that the petitioner, along with co-accused, had established 35 fake firms and generated invoices for tax amounts exceeding Rupees Ten Crores. The revenue pointed to the petitioner's statement admitting to creating these fake firms based on fake IDs and documents for a fee, which were subsequently used for GST evasion by others.