Anil Kumar Gupta S/O Sh. Chandra Prakash Gupta Partner Salasar E West vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the contentions put forth by both parties and deemed it proper to allow the bail application. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's submissions that the firms were not entirely non-existent as they were reflected on the GST portal, and that there was evidence of actual goods movement which could reduce the disputed amount. The Court also implicitly considered the petitioner's argument regarding the quantum of alleged evasion and the maximum sentence prescribed. The ratio decidendi is that where there are arguable points regarding the existence of firms, evidence of goods movement, and a dispute over the quantum of alleged evasion, bail may be granted, especially considering the period of custody. The operative direction is to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Gupta, a partner in Salasar E West, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The FIR was registered for an offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Initially, the allegation was wrongful claim of input tax credit (ITC) to the tune of Rs. 5.27 Crore, which later increased to Rs. 5.88 Crore in the complaint. The petitioner argued that the firms involved were shown on the department's portal, some still existing, and he was not in management. He also contended that actual goods movement was evidenced by toll naka receipts and e-way bills, which, if accounted for, would reduce the ITC claim by approximately Rs. 3 Crore. The petitioner has been in custody since November 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the alleged wrongful claim of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 5.88 Crore, considering the petitioner's arguments regarding the existence of firms on the portal, his non-involvement in management, and evidence of actual goods movement. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the firms were visible on the GST portal, with three still active, suggesting they were not entirely non-existent. He asserted he was not managing these firms. Furthermore, he presented evidence of actual goods movement through toll naka receipts and e-way bills, arguing that a proper calculation of goods movement would significantly reduce the disputed ITC amount. He also highlighted that offences involving ITC claims below Rs. 5 Crore are generally bailable and that the maximum sentence is five years, noting his period of custody. Revenue's arguments: The Union of India opposed the bail application, arguing that fake firms were created to claim ITC and that the proprietors of these firms were untraceable. The revenue emphasized that tax evasion harms the nation's economy and urged the court to be stringent in granting bail.