Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 13541 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12637 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, Amrendra Nath Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Rajesh Kumar, Rohit Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri V.K. Shahi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.738 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 66 I.T. Act, Police Station - S.G.P.G.I., District - Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the applicant is a young lawyer associated with the informant of the present case, who is also a practising lawyer, sent the eight firms to the applicant for providing legal aid and G.S.T. Thereafter, on his advice, services of one Sanjay Yadav was taken, who misused the user I.D. and password of the applicant and raised fabricated input tax credit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that detail investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, but the only evidence found is of payment of Rs.1,12,000/- in the account of wife of the applicant by co-accused Sanjay Yadav, which is discussed in Parcha no.44. It is vehemently submits that except the aforesaid transaction, there is no evidence that applicant obtained any monitory benefit from the firms as well as in false tax claim. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of main accused, Sanjay Yadav was recorded by the Investigating Officer, in which, he categorically stated that he was a Data Entry Operator and he was actively associated with one Chartered Accountant, namely, Pradeep Kumar and he had done all alleged mischief related to the input tax credit alongwith said Pradeep Kumar. The applicant was also implicated in four cases, out of which, in two cases, he is on regular bail, in one case he is on anticipatory bail, and in one case final report has been submitted. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that charge sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence, the trial is also not going on. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that co-accused, Sanjay Yadav has already been granted bail by the court below. In such circumstances and in particular the fact that there is no documentary evidence which proves the prosecution story against the applicant, the applicant who is in jail since 20.9.2022, is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the complainant informs that informant has moved bail cancellation application in relation to the co-accused Sanjay Yadav, which is still pending.

Sri V.K. Shahi, learned A.A.G. on the basis of written instructions dated 24.4.2023 of Mr. Devendra Singh, Joint Commissioner, G.S.T. Head Quarter, Lucknow, submits that there is a huge tax evasion of Rs. 601.26 Crore by way of making false claim of input tax credit in 455 companies, all over the country, out of which, 49 firms were found in U.P., in which Rs. 182 Crore of false input tax credit is found and only 66 lakh rupees has been recovered till today.

The letter dated 28.4.2023 of Mr. Devendra Singh, Joint Commissioner, G.S.T. Headquarter, Lucknow is taken on record.

For ready reference, letter dated 28.4.2023 is reproduced as under:-

"मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश क्रि०मि० केस संख्या-12637/2022 मो० राशिद सिद्दीकी बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य दिनांक 25-04-2023 का संदर्भ ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद, खण्डपीठ लखनऊ द्वारा प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में उत्तर प्रदेश में Tentative Tax Evasion की समरी के साथ सुनवाई हेतु नियत तिथि पर उपस्थित होने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया है जिसके अनुपालन में एडीशनल कमिश्नर (विधि) वाणिज्य कर, मुख्यालय द्वारा एडीशनल कमिश्नर ग्रेड-1, राज्य कर, मुरादाबाद से सूचना प्राप्त कर समेकित सूचना आपको प्रेषित किए जाने का निर्देश दिया गया है।

मा० न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में सहायक आयुक्त, खण्ड-2, रामपुर द्वारा पत्र संख्या-मेमो/ दिनांक 28-04-2023 द्वारा मुख्यालय को प्रेषित पत्र में अवगत कराया है कि उनके द्वारा उपायुक्त (करापवंचन) केन्द्रीय वस्तु एवं सेवाकर, मेरठ को पत्रांक-40 दिनांक 27-04-2023 द्वारा पत्र प्रेषित करते हुए प्रकरण से सम्बन्धित सूचना चाही गई थी जिसके क्रम में संयुक्त आयुक्त (करापवंचन) केन्द्रीय वस्तु एवं सेवाकर, मेरठ द्वारा पत्रांक-23 दिनांक 28-04-2023 के माध्यम से ई-मेल पर सूचनाएं संलग्न करते हुए प्रेषित की गई हैं। प्राप्त सूचनाओं के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि केन्द्रीय वस्तु एवं सेवाकर, मेरठ द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश एवं उत्तर प्रदेश के बाहर की कुल 455 फर्मों की जांच की गई थी। इन समस्त 455 फर्मा द्वारा कुल रू0 6012620140.00 की फेक / बोगस आई०टी०सी० पासऑन की गई है जिसमें से रू० 69525238.00 की रिकवरी की जा चुकी है। उक्त 455 फर्मों में से उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में पंजीकृत (राज्य एवं केन्द्रीय क्षेत्राधिकार) कुल 41 फर्मों द्वारा कुल रु० 1696997637.00 की फेक/ बोगस आई०टी०सी० पासऑन की गई है जिसमें से रू० 6674741.00 की रिकवरी की जा चुकी है। उक्त के अतिरिक्त प्रकरण से सम्बन्धित रामपुर जनपद में पंजीकृत (राज्य एवं केन्द्रीय क्षेत्राधिकार) कुल 08 फर्मों द्वारा रु० 137392001.00 की फेक / बोगस आई०टी०सी० पासऑन की गई है।

इस प्रकार प्रकरण में उत्तर प्रदेश से सम्बन्धित फर्मों द्वारा Tentative Tax Evasion की धनराशि रु० 1834389638.00 तथा उत्तर प्रदेश एवं उत्तर प्रदेश से बाहर की फर्मों द्वारा Tentative Tax Evasion की धनराशि रू0 6150012141.00 है। तदनुसार अवगत होते हुए मा० न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में आवश्यक कार्यवाही करने का कष्ट करें।

यह पत्र आयुक्त, राज्य कर, उत्तर प्रदेश के अनुमोदनोपरान्त प्रेषित किया जा रहा है।"

It is further submitted that in the present case, Sanjay Yadav as well as Pradeep Kumar are the beneficiaries of crores of rupees, however, he does not dispute the fact that in the case diary, only evidence found against the applicant is that Rs.1.12 lakh was deposited in the account of wife of the applicant by Sanjay Yadav, which is discussed in parcha no.44. Learned A.A.G. also fairly conceded that the co-accused Sanjay Yadav, one of the main beneficiary, has already been enlarged on bail by the court below.

Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General, assisted by Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. accepts that the alleged offence is a new type of crime, which has to be examined by some expert team consisting of expert Police Officials, Cyber Expert, Audit Experts and Law Expert related to the G.S.T. Learned A.A.G. further submits that it is undisputed that on the basis of false documents, input tax credit amounting to Rs.601.26 crore was obtained by the accused persons out of which against 49 firms, which are registered  in the State of U.P., input tax credit was raised about 182 crore.

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.A.G, learned counsel for the complainant and going through the material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, gravity of offence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that during the course of investigation Rs.1.12 lakh is found in the account of wife of the applicant by the main accused, Sanjay Yadav. It is also evident that said Sanjay Yadav, has already been enlarged on bail. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Let applicant - Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two reliable sureties of Rs.1,00,000 each to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

However, before parting with the judgment, as it is undisputed by Mr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Commissioner, G.S.T. Lucknow and Mr. Vijendra Pal Singh, Assistant Commissioner, G.S.T., Lucknow that in the entire country false input tax credit of amounting Rs.601.26 crore is claimed by 455 firms/companies under the provisions of Goods and Services Tax, out of which, 49 firms registered in Uttar Pradesh  claimed input tax credit of amounting Rs.182 crore and till now, only Rs.66 lakh has been recovered by G.S.T. Official.

This Court is of the view that a Special Investigation Team be constituted consisting of Police Official/Investigating Officer, Goods and Service Tax Expert, Audit Expert and Cyber Expert for further investigation in the matter.

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Director General of Police as well as Director General of S.I.T, Lucknow are directed to pass necessary directions in relation to the investigation of all the cases in which input tax credit is involved on the basis of forged documents. 

List this case for further order in the month of July, 2023.

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of U.P. is directed to file affidavit of compliance by the next date.

Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and Director, S.I.T., U.P., Lucknow for necessary compliance forthwith.

The presence of Mr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Additional Commissioner, G.S.T., Lucknow, Mr. Vijendra Pal Singh, Assistant Commissioner, G.S.T., Lucknow and Mohd. Muslim Khan, Sub Inspector/Investigating Officer is hereby discharged.

Order Date :- 1.5.2023

Gaurav/-