A Delhi court has granted bail to an accused who is accused of submitting erroneously a GST input credit worth 19 crores.
The suspect was detained in judicial custody until December 14 after being captured on December 1, 2022.
When granting bail last Thursday, Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik stated that no general ban on release could be imposed just because a defendant had been charged with an economic crime. The applicant has been detained in this case since December 1, 2022. The prosecution’s report reveals that the accused’s case has previously been thoroughly investigated.
The court further stated in its judgement, “The testimony of the interested parties, including the transporters, has already been recorded by the prosecution. The pertinent records have been gathered. The prosecution never filed a motion for the accused to be questioned in custody, which proves that such action is not justified.”
The prosecution has objected to the bail motion, according to the court, on the grounds that it is likely the accused will try to influence the transporters whose statements have been recorded. Especially when there are no justifiable grounds for further custodial incarceration, the bail cannot be denied based only on the suspicion that the accused may attempt to influence the transporters.
Jagdish Bansal was granted bail by the court on a personal bond for 15 lakh rupees and two sureties in the same amount.
Attorneys Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and Ayush Jindal appeared on behalf of Jagdish Mittal and argued that the magistrate erred in denying the bail application due to an incorrect interpretation of the law. Section 132 of the GST Act carries a maximum sentence of five years, and bail is typically granted in cases of similar offences.
In addition, Attorney Vijay Aggarwal argued that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erroneously applied the law by concluding that, while an accused person is on remand, the court only needs to determine whether a prima-facie case has been established against them and cannot then review the evidence that has been filed.
The Magistrate has not complied with the instructions set down by the Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar, he continued, and the Magistrate is required to record satisfaction before permitting further custody of the accused.
According to the allegations, Jagdish Bansal set up four sole proprietorship businesses and illegally claimed an input tax credit (ITC) under the GST on the basis of fictitious invoices, without ever receiving any products. Furthermore, it was claimed that by employing this method, the proprietorship concerns transferred unlawful ITC worth 19.67 crores. It was further claimed that Jagdish Bansal admitted creating fictitious businesses and distributing ITC on the basis of fake invoices in his statement recorded under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.
