Rajasthan High Court
Vikas Pathak Son Of Shri Akshayvar ... vs Union Of India on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9662/2022
Vikas Pathak Son Of Shri Akshayvar Pathak, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Village Post Gambhirpur Post Mirzapur, P.S.
Nautan Sivan, Bihar (Petitioner Is Presenlty Confined In Judicial
Custody In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Superintendent, Central Goods And
Service Tax And Central Excise, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing
Counsel for CGST
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
09/09/2022
This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. in connection with Criminal Original Case No.134/2022 (Case No.
F. No.IV(06)/16/AE/JPR/2022) for the offences under Sections 132(1)
(b)(c) & 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was arrested on 15.03.2022 and produced before the Court
on 16.03.2022, thereafter, complaint was presented against him.
Learned counsel further submits that neither any allegation has been
levelled against the petitioner nor he has obtained any Input Tax Credit
illegally, for his own personal gain. Learned counsel further submits that
it is an admitted case of the Department that the accounting work was
done at the behest of one K.K. Modi in connivance with Rahul Gupta,
Maneesh and Sachin Agarwal and the Department contrary to its own
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-9662/2022]
findings has not made K.K. Modi party to the present case and the
petitioner was merely an employee of K.K. Modi, upon a remuneration
of Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that as per
the department, the petitioner was found illegally passing on Input Tax
Credit of Rs.5,01, 91,765/-, which is just above the threshold of Rs.5
crores and under the said threshold, such offence is bailable and it is
clear from perusal of complaint that in the petitioner's case this amount
of Input Tax Credit has been extended with the intention of making the
matter non-bailable. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
has no criminal antecedents and the case is exclusively triable by the
Special Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the following judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-
(1) Sumit Bodana & Anr. Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.7408/2022) decided on 01.07.2022, (2) Kamal Chand
Bothra Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.8954/2022)
decided on 01.07.2022, (3) Mohit Vijay Vs. Union of India (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7605/2019) decided on 02.06.2020,
(4) Abhishek Gehlot Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Bail Application
No.4086/2022) decided on 13.04.2022 and (5) Dipanshu Gupta Vs.
Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3399/2022)
decided on 13.04.2022. Therefore, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the judgments cited above, bail
application of the petitioner may be granted.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CGST has strongly
opposed the bail application and in his reply to the bail application of
para No.7H of (vi) has stated as under:-
(vi) On being shown the documents extracted from his
mobile, Mr. Vikas Pathak also disclosed that these
documents had details of 81 fake firms which were created
by him alongwith Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr.
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-9662/2022]
Manish Sharma and Mr. Krishnakant Modi for issuing bills
without actual supply of goods. He further stated that apart
from these 81 fake firms, there may be more fake firms
created by the racket. Mr. Pathak further stated that around
33 firms are operating under the purview of the Jaipur
Commissionerate which were created by him along with Mr.
Sachin Agarwal, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Manish Sharma & Mr.
Krishnakant Modi and have availed illegal ITC of
Rs.6,23,10,980/- and passed on Input Tax Credit of
Rs.5,01,91,765/- fraudulently to various recipients.
Learned counsel for the CGST has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalit Goyal Vs. Union of India
& Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3509/2022) decided on
26.08.2022 and the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the cases of (1) Rishiraj Swami Vs. Union of India & Anr (S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.11286/2021) decided on 07.09.2021, (2) Raj
Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.11339/2021) decided on 07.09.2021, (3) Abhishek
Singhal Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.6304/2021) decided on 17.05.2021, (4) Mahendra Saini Vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7564/2021) decided
on 29.06.2021 and (5) Ashok Kumar Sihotiya Vs. Union of India (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9808/2021) decided on 05.07.2021.
Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and the judgments
cited above, bail application of the petitioner may be rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalit Goyal Vs. Union of
India & Anr. (supra) was not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13042/2021, whereby, the bail
application of the petitioner/accused Lalit Goyal was dismissed on the
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-9662/2022]
submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner and
other persons had made various firms and claimed Input Tax Credit of
Rs.18.91 crores without any transportation of goods.
In the present case as per the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner, the Department had found the petitioner
illegally passing on Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.5,01,91,765/-,
which is just above the threshold of Rs.5 crores and under the said
threshold, such offence is bailable. Therefore, considering the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into
consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case but without
expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court
deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vikas
Pathak S/o Shri Akshayvar Pathak shall be enlarged on bail; provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties
of Rs.1,00,000/- each (out of which one surety shall be resident of
Jaipur Metro or Jaipur District) to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of
hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J
Ashish Kumar /118
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
