Yogender Yadav vs. Union Of INDIA Through Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Facts

The petitioner, Yogender Yadav, a chartered accountant, was arrested on October 23, 2021, for allegedly committing offenses under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. He is accused of facilitating two proprietorship concerns, M/s Lalji Enterprises and M/s Hemu Overseas, in illegally availing input tax credit amounting to Rs. 18.01 crores by preparing fictitious statements of accounts and forged invoices. The petitioner claims he was merely acting as a chartered accountant for these entities. The prosecution alleges that without his involvement in preparing these documents, the offense would not have occurred. The court notes that it is a matter of evidence whether the petitioner actually prepared these documents or loaded them onto electronic devices. While the petitioner allegedly facilitated the commission of offenses, there is no tangible evidence at this stage suggesting he was a beneficiary of the illegal drawings.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's role in allegedly preparing fictitious invoices and statements of accounts, which facilitated the illegal availment of input tax credit of Rs. 18.01 crores, prima facie appears to have enabled the commission of offenses under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the evidence at this stage is not fully collected and the investigation is ongoing. Crucially, there is no tangible evidence suggesting the petitioner was a direct beneficiary of the illegal drawings from the government treasury. Given the petitioner's judicial incarceration since October 23, 2021, and the fact that the investigation is still underway, prolonging his custody would unduly curtail his personal liberty. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure he does not flee from justice, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. The petitioner offered his ancestral house as personal surety, which the Court deemed just and reasonable. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released from judicial custody upon compliance with the imposed conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's role in allegedly preparing fictitious statements of accounts and forged invoices, thereby facilitating the illegal availment of input tax credit of Rs. 18.01 crores under Section 16 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, warrants continued judicial incarceration, considering the ongoing investigation and lack of evidence of him being a direct beneficiary? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that he was acting solely as a chartered accountant for the concerned proprietorship concerns and that it is a matter of evidence whether he actually prepared the alleged fictitious invoices and statements of accounts. He also highlighted that he has been in judicial custody since his arrest on October 23, 2021, and further incarceration would unduly curtail his personal liberty, especially as the investigation is still underway and evidence is being collected. The petitioner is willing to furnish his ancestral house as personal surety. Respondent's contention: The respondent, Union of India through the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, implicitly argued that the petitioner's role was crucial in facilitating the commission of offenses under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Act, as evidenced by the alleged preparation of forged documents leading to illegal availment of input tax credit.