Anup Ashopa S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Ashopa vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning appears to be primarily based on the parity with co-accused who have already been granted bail. The Court considered the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, particularly the fact that individuals involved in claiming a significantly larger amount of input tax credit through fake firms have been released on bail. The Court also took into account the deposit of a substantial sum by the petitioner and the reduction in the total disputed input tax credit. The ratio decidendi is that when co-accused involved in similar or more serious allegations have been granted bail, and considering the amount deposited and the reduced disputed amount, the petitioner should also be considered for bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, subject to his appearance before the trial court on all subsequent dates.

Facts

The petitioner, Anup Ashopa, a Chartered Accountant, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur, initiated proceedings against him for alleged offenses under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), and (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations involve the incorporation of fake firms to claim fraudulent input tax credit. The petitioner's counsel argued that co-accused Vijay and Kapil, involved in claiming over Rs. 100 crore in input tax credit through fake firms, have been granted bail. It was further submitted that the input tax credit alleged against specific firms like Maruti Traders, Balaji Traders, and Tirupati Enterprises amounts to approximately Rs. 7.85 crore, and a sum of Rs. 1.44 crore has already been deposited, reducing the disputed amount to less than Rs. 7 crore.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the allegations of incorporating fake firms for claiming input tax credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is entitled to bail. They highlighted that co-accused Vijay and Kapil, who were involved in claiming input tax credit exceeding Rs. 100 crore through twenty-one fake firms, have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court. Furthermore, the counsel pointed out that the input tax credit alleged against specific firms is Rs. 7.85 crore, and a significant portion, Rs. 1.44 crore, has been deposited, bringing the total disputed input tax credit claim to less than Rs. 7 crore. Reliance was placed on the fact that other individuals involved in substantial claims have been granted bail. Respondent's Contentions: The Union of India, through its counsel, opposed the bail application. The respondent contended that the petitioner was instrumental in incorporating the fake firms and had obtained necessary documents to facilitate their incorporation for the purpose of claiming input tax credit.