Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Anup Ashopa S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad ... vs Union Of India on 7 July, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
4028/2020
Anup Ashopa S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Ashopa, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Flat No. 23, Hari Kripa Apartment, Sector 10,
Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail,
Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Intelligence Officer (Directorate General
Of Gst Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa For Union of India : Mr. Siddharth Ranka HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 07/07/2020
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. File No.DGGI/JZU/INV/Gr.K/48/Part-IV/2018-19, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 132 (1)(b)(c)(f)(l) Central Goods and Service Act, 2017.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the matter pertains to claim of wrong input tax credit on the basis of fake bills. The allegation against the petitioner who is a Chartered Accountant is of making fake firms who later on claimed input tax (Downloaded on 09/07/2020 at 09:28:00 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4028/2020] credit. It is contended that Vijay and Kapil have been enlarged on bail who had remained in custody for a period of more than a year. The input tax credit pertaining to their firms was more than Rs.100 crore. It is also contended that as per the charge-sheet, the input tax credit of about Rs.7.85 crore is alleged against Maruti Traders, Balaji Traders and Tirupati Enterprises. It is also contended that a sum of Rs.1 crore and 44 lac has also been deposited and the total input tax credit claim now is less than Rs.7 crore.
4. It is also contended that as many as Twenty One fake firms were corporated and input tax credit of more than Rs. 100 crore was claimed by Vijay and Kapil who have been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
5. Counsel for Union of India has opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner was instrumental in incorporating fake firms. He had obtained documents and had got incorporated fake firms for the purpose of claiming input tax credit.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.
8. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before (Downloaded on 09/07/2020 at 09:28:00 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4028/2020] that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA-NIKHIL/12 (Downloaded on 09/07/2020 at 09:28:00 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)