Saurabh Kumar Jain S/O Shri Nemi Chand Jain vs. Union Of INDIA Through Senior Intelligence Officer,Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court considered the submissions advanced by both parties, the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, his length of custody (since December 19, 2020), the filing of the complaint, the material contained therein, the fact that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the maximum punishment being 5 years, and the absence of criminal antecedents. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The Court allowed the bail application and directed the petitioner's release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, subject to compliance with Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioner, Saurabh Kumar Jain, an accountant, was arrested in connection with a complaint filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, for alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated and was merely working as an accountant on commission. The DGGI alleges the petitioner issued fake invoices worth approximately Rs. 800 crores, causing a tax loss of about Rs. 126 crores, and that he admitted to creating fake firms. The petitioner has been in custody since December 19, 2020, and a complaint has been filed. This is a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's arrest was made in violation of statutory provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and its Rules, specifically concerning the duties of officials under Section 25 read with Section 61 of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the offences under various sub-sections of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for which the complaint has been filed, are mutually exclusive and cannot be proceeded with simultaneously? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his arrest was in violation of statutory provisions and that the officials failed to discharge their duties under Section 25 read with Section 61 of the Act. He also contended that the various provisions of Section 132 invoked are mutually exclusive. He further submitted that he is in custody since December 19, 2020, investigation is complete, a complaint has been filed, witnesses are departmental, the offence is triable by a Magistrate, and he has no criminal antecedents, thus praying for bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent-Department argued that the petitioner is accused of issuing fake invoices worth Rs. 800 crores, leading to a tax loss of Rs. 126 crores, and that the petitioner admitted to creating fake firms in his statement. Therefore, they prayed for the rejection of the bail application.