GAURAV DHIR Vs. CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sec. 132(1)(i) read with Sec. 132(1)(b)(c)(e)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by qualification, who was initially registered but had subsequently given it up. In the present case, he had been paid professional fee for uploading of the refund of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner and his co-accused Sunil Mahalawat were colleagues, as such the UDIN was borrowed by the petitioner from him for uploading and issuance of the CA certificate. He, however, further submits that otherwise as per Rule 89(m) of CGST Rules, CA certificate is not required for the aforesaid purpose. He further submits that pursuant to the notice by which, the petitioner was summoned, he appeared to join the investigation on 17/5/2022 but was arrested there and then. Thereafter, he was sent to the judicial remand but no request for police remand had been sought by the respondent- Department. The recovery of laptop and other relevant documents have already been effected from the petitioner. He further submits that the entire investigation has been completed, challan stands presented and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 17/5/2022 and in all there are a total of 21 prosecution witnesses, all of whom are officials of the Department, as is reflected from the challan.

(3.) He further submits that from the challan it is apparent that before the disbursal of the amount, the Range Officer had submitted the report after conducting physical verification marked on the system and recommended that refund may be sanctioned. He further refers to the statement of co- accused-Lalit Dogra, who in response to question No.6 had stated that he had engaged the petitioner to render professional service against payment of fee. It is stated that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is 5 years and it is a Magisterial trial, which is likely to take a considerable time. It is his further submission that there is no allegation against him that he in any way was the beneficiary of the excess Input Tax Credit, allegedly received by the companies. He is also not involved in any other case.