Rajiv Singla vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted the averments made by the respondents in their status report. Specifically, it was highlighted that the petitioner had admitted to availing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 1,66,83,520/- from fake firms and had already paid Rs. 50 Lakhs via DRC-03. The petitioner also promised to pay the remaining amount along with interest and applicable penalty within 15 days. The status report explicitly stated that at that point, there was no proposal for the petitioner's arrest, and any apprehension of arrest was considered baseless. In light of these submissions by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner chose not to press the present petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition as not pressed.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajiv Singla, filed a petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The respondents, Union of India and another, filed a status report. The status report indicated that summons were issued to 'M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog' under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner appeared in compliance with the summons and provided a voluntary statement. In this statement, the petitioner admitted to availing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 1,66,83,520/- from fake firms. The petitioner also stated that Rs. 50 Lakhs had been paid via DRC-03 and promised to pay the remaining amount along with interest and penalty within 15 days. The status report also mentioned that there was no proposal for the petitioner's arrest at that moment, and any apprehension of arrest was baseless.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's apprehension of arrest is baseless, considering the admissions made and steps taken towards regularization? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the investigation process under the CGST Act, 2017). Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner, through his counsel, did not press the petition in view of the averments made in the status report by the respondents. This implies the petitioner was satisfied with the information provided regarding the investigation and the absence of immediate arrest. Respondents: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted a status report detailing the issuance of summons under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the petitioner's appearance, his voluntary statement admitting to availing fake ITC, and the payment made via DRC-03. They stated that there was no proposal for the petitioner's arrest at that stage and that his apprehension was baseless.