Amit Gupta vs. The Union Of INDIA Rep By Shri Dinesh Kumar Io Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner. The Court considered that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since April 9, 2024, the investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed. It was noted that the trial is yet to commence and is likely to consume considerable time. The Court also observed that the relevant evidence pertains to electronic data, which cannot be tampered with by the petitioner, and the other witnesses are official witnesses. Given these circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the materials on record, and the period of custody, the Court found it inclined to release the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. The conditions imposed include the petitioner remaining physically present before the trial court on each date, not indulging in any similar offence, and not influencing prosecution witnesses. Violation of any condition would lead to cancellation of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Gupta, is accused in Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2024, registered under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Sections 201, 204, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioner created fake companies/firms, appointed directors/partners/proprietors, and fraudulently availed and passed on inadmissible Input Tax Credit, causing a loss of over Rs. 522.91 Crores to the government exchequer without actual supply of goods. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since April 9, 2024. The investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been submitted. This is a bail application before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2024, registered under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Sections 201, 204, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated. He argues that no offence under the IPC is made out and the maximum punishment under the CGST Act is five years. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India. The petitioner highlights that the material evidence is electronic, he has no criminal antecedent, and he has been in judicial custody since April 9, 2024. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial, be present on all dates, and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Revenue's Arguments: The Union of India (Opposite Party) opposes the bail application, stating there are direct allegations against the petitioner for creating fake companies and passing on inadmissible Input Tax Credit. It is submitted that the petitioner is a director of nine companies and has created over a hundred fake firms and companies.