Sumit Gupta @ Sumit Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India Represented By Shri … on 7 March, 2025

0
6

Jharkhand High Court

Sumit Gupta @ Sumit Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India Represented By Shri … on 7 March, 2025

Author: Ambuj Nath

Bench: Ambuj Nath

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     B.A No. 425 of 2025

              Sumit Gupta @ Sumit Kumar Gupta, son of Late Ramesh Chand Gupta,
              age about 44 years, Resident of T-1, Flat No. 3/C, M.B. Block, Bidhan
              Nagar, Salt Lake City, P.O and P.S. Bidhan Nagar, District Kokata, West
              Bengal                                   ---         ---   Petitioner
                                            Versus
              Union of India represented by Shri Dinesh Kumar, Intelligence Officer,
              Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur, 2 nd
              / 3rd Floor Shaurya Trade Centre, 159, Dhalbhum Road, Sakchi, P.O &
              P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
                                                       ---         ---   Opp. Party
                                                   ---

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

For the Petitioner: M/s Indrajit Sinha, Nitin Kr. Pasari,
Shubham Choudhary, Sidhi Jalan, Advocates
For the O.P-UoI: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate

05 / 07.03.2025 Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Complaint
Case No. 1280 of 2024 arising out of File No.
DGGI/INV/GST/2538/2023-Gr E-O/o ADD-DGGI-RU-JAMSHEDPUR
for the offences registered under sections 132 of CGST Act read with
section 20 of IGST Act read with section 34, 120A, 193, 195(A), 201,
203, 204, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur.

3. Petitioner is said to be the mastermind behind creating fake
companies / firms which were involved in passing on inadmissible Input
Tax Credit. About 522.91 crore was illegally passed on as inadmissible
Input Tax Credit of Goods and Services Tax causing huge loss to the
Government Exchequer.

4. Bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court.

5. Petitioner has moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P (Cri)
No. 11672 of 2024 which was withdrawn vide order dated 02.09.2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted
that though, cognizance of the offences has been taken under sections
2.
132(1) (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as offences
under sections 201 (Part-3, 204, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code
, but no offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal
Code
is made out. It was further submitted that maximum punishment
for the offence under the CGST Act is of five years. Reliance has been
placed upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case
of Ratnambar Kaushik versus Union of India reported in [(2023) 2
SCC 621]. It was further submitted that material evidences are electronic
evidences and as such, it cannot be tampered into.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CGST has opposed
the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the
petitioner that he is involved in creating fake companies which were
further involved in passing on inadmissible Input Tax Credit.

8. It appears that in connected cases of similar nature, co-accused
Amit Gupta has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide B.A. No. 5472 of 2024 and another co-accused Gyan Chandra
Jaiswal was granted bail by another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
B.A. No. 7209 of 2024.

9. Petitioner is in custody for about nine months and offences
alleged under the CGST Act, 2017 are punishable with maximum
sentence of five years. As submitted, material evidences are electronic in
nature and as such, cannot be tampered into.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named,
is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special
Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint
Case No. 1280 of 2024 arising out of File No. DGGI / INV / GST / 2538
/ 2023-Gr E-O/o ADD-DGGI-RU-JAMSHEDPUR.

(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here