Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sanjeev Jain v. UOI
Sanjeev Jain v. UOI
Sanjeev Jain S/o Ramesh Jain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 21A, ZP, Near
TV Tower, Pitampura, Shalimar Bagh, North West Delhi-110088
(Currently Confined to Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Accused Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Anti-Evasion, Central Goods And Services Tax
Commissionerate, Jaipur Through Special Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3981/2021
Ramesh Jain S/o Shri Bhimsain Jain, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 21A, ZP,
Near TV Tower, Pitampura, Shalimar Bagh, North West Delhi - 110088
(Currently Confined to Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Accused Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Anti-Evasion, Central Goods And Services Tax
Commissionerate, Jaipur Through Special Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
Order
the effect that income tax credit (for short, 'ITC') on the invoices issued
Circle-I, State Tax, Jaipur dated 3.3.2020 was also enclosed, wherein it
its principal place of business and, therefore, the invoices issued by M/s.
State Tax had also informed that no business activities were done at the
the said firm had been cancelled and complete ITC had been blocked.
M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. F-438, Phase-1, Ind. Area, Bhiwadi
later, it was registered under the GST regime. Since July, 2017 (after
February, 2020 and the total taxable supplies shown in GSTR 3B returns
were Rs. 300.09 crores. M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. had paid tax
amounting Rs. 48.87 crores through ITC and Rs. 2.20 lakhs only
through cash. It had also paid cash Rs. 4.71 lakhs under RCM. The cash
Director of another firm called M/s. Mohit Metals Pvt. Ltd., G-1208 B &
wrongful input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 47,91,05,784/- and passed
filed against them before ACJM (Economic Offence), Jaipur and they
before the trial court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated
that as per Section 134 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
(for short, 'the Act of 2017'), the alleged offence is triable by a Judicial
(Annexure-1), the petitioners have been arrested for the offence under
clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 132 of the Act of 2017. As per the provisions of Section 132 of
the Act of 2017, maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence is
the Court towards Section 137 of the Act of 2017 and submits that
was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as well
nor initiated any action for the alleged offence against the Company,
further submits that for the alleged offence a taxable person is liable to
Section 122 (1) of the Act of 2017 and in view of sub-section (3) of
Section 122 of the Act of 2017, who aids or abets the offence shall be
only. The petitioners who are the employees of the Company have been
Commissioner.
arrested for the offence under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act of 2017, but the
charge sheet was filed against them for the offence under Section
132(1) (b) (c) (l) of the Act of 2017 alongwith other offences. He
further submits that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the
Act of 2017 deals with issuing any invoice or bill and clause (c) of sub-
section (1) of Section 132 deals with availing input tax credit, whereas
clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act of 2017 deals with
mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) of this Section, for which the maximum
sentence is six months. If viewed from this angle, the alleged offence is
bailable. He further submits that clauses (a) (b), (c) and (d) of sub-
section (1) of Section 132 of the Act of 2017 are exclusive clauses and
all other offences are non cognizable and bailable under sub-section (4)
of Section 132 of the Act of 2017. He has drawn the attention of this
Court towards internal page 2 of the charge sheet (page 31 of the bail
Pvt. Ltd. had paid tax amounting to Rs. 48.87 crores through ITC and
Rs. 2.20 lakhs through cash. It had also paid cash Rs. 4.71 lakhs under
RCM.
the company M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and invested money for
whereas the petitioner Ramesh Jain was the employee in the company
alleged to be the Director of M/s. Mohit Metals Pvt. Ltd, whereas the
Director of the said Company is Sunil Dutta and the petitioner Sanjeev
Jain was also an employee in the said company and getting Rs.
Merchandise, Hanuman Nagar, Gudia Market, Office No. 27, New Loha
08AAOFV2648B1Z1).
Bala, Sunil Dutta, Akhilesh Yadav and Bimal Kumar Jain, who are
Directors of the Company, but they did not appear and the petitioners
Laundering case where interim bail / parole was granted to him. If the
Directors are not coming for recording their statement, then action
the petitioners Ramesh Kumar Jain and Sanjeev Jain are actively
involved in availing wrong ITC, which goes to show that the petitioners
are not the Directors of the company and they are only the employees
of the company.
charge sheet has already been filed. Now the petitioners are not
Ramesh Jain is about 63 years of age who is suffering from acute Sleep
apnea and a Certificate in this regard has been issued by the Doctor of
The petitioners have in judicial custody for long and the conclusion of
trial will take long time, hence they may be enlarged on bail.
following judgments:
submits that M/s. Swissline had filed GSTR 3B returns upto February,
2020 and the total taxable supplies shown in GSTR 3B returns were Rs.
300.09 crore. M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. had paid tax
amounting Rs. 48.87 crores through ITC and Rs. 2.20 lakhs only
through cash. It had also paid cash Rs. 4.71 lakhs under RCM. The cash
: ITC ratio of M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. is 0.04 : 99.96. The
petitioners are not the employees but they are shareholder Directors of
Director of M/s. Mohit Metals Pvt. Ltd. and has 65% share in the said
company.
credit to the tune of Rs. 47,91,05,784/- and passed on fake / bogus ITC
tax credit to the tune of Rs. 13,35,44,893/- and passed on fake / bogus
sheeted under Section 132 of the Act of 2017. Section 132 of the Act of
2017 deals with punishment. He has drawn the attention of the Court
towards clauses (b)(c) and (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the
under:
the Act of 2017, the offence committed under clause (b) or (c) of sub-
section (1) of Section 132 of the Act of 2017 are cognizable and non-
counsel submits that the matter is still under process. While filing the
charge sheet, the respondent had kept their right reserved to examine
will be filed. He further submits that since Bimal Kumar Jain had been
submits that the petitioners created bogus entities only for the purpose
Sanjeev Jain was being paid commission of 1-1.5% on every fake bill.
in entirety.
offence.
following judgments:
Heard. Considered.
observed as under:
punishment awarded under the Act of 2017 being five years, offences
consideration the fact that the petitioner was a senior citizen and was in
custody for last about 5 months; all the evidence being documentary in
Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Versus Central Bureau of
this Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner therein on the
ground that the petitioner was partner in M/s. Veto Merchandise and a
sum of Rs. 47 crore was claimed as Input Tax Credit without any
ground that fake bills and invoices input tax credit was passed on to
learned respective counsel and more particularly in view of the fact that
2017 is five years and also considering the fact that investigation is
already complete and charge-sheet has been filed and also considering
the age of petitioner Ramesh Jain and the fact that the petitioners have
any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to
directed that accused petitioners (1) Sanjeev Jain S/o Ramesh Jain and
(2) Ramesh Jain S/o Shri Bhimsain Jain shall be released on bail under
the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) together with two
only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that
the petitioner(s) shall appear before the trial court on all subsequent
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J.
DK/15