Rs. 75 Crore Fake GST ITC Fraud: Patiala House Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Accused
Rs. 75 Crore Fake GST ITC Fraud: Patiala House Court Grants Bail To Accused
The Patiala House Court, Delhi has granted anticipatory bail to the person accused of orchestrating a Rs. 75 crore fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud.
The bench of Chander Jit Singh (DHJS) has observed that no apprehension has been expressed that applicant might flee from the course of justice and even if such apprehension exist, no concrete material placed on record to buttress this contention.
The applicant/accused is a law abiding citizen of India and is an indigenous entrepreneur. The applicant is working as Director of one Company M/s Rajnandini Metal Limited and is registered with the jurisdictional GST Department. In connection with the present case, the officers of Directorate General of GST Intelligence visited the factory premises as well as residence premises of the applicant and conducted a very lengthy and thorough investigation from the applicant. The officers of Directorate General of GST Intelligence brought the applicant to their office at Dwarka, New Delhi for further investigation.
The applicant alleged that officers of Directorate General of GST Intelligence has set the criminal law into motion by concealing and maneuvering the facts with great subtlety and the applicant has been made scapegoat of the circumstances. Directorate General of GST Intelligence has instituted the case not only to extort the applicant but also the same is devised to tighten the loose around him.
The applicant is a permanent resident of Faridabad and has fixed abode with the absolutely clean antecedents. That applicant is an Income Tax assessee/payee, thus, there is no likelihood of his absconding from the clutches of law. The applicant undertakes to appear before the concerned officer and participate in the enquiry/investigation as and when directed by the authorities. That applicant undertakes not to tamper with any evidence or influence any witness. That no useful prupose would be served by the incarceration of the applicant. Hence, present application.
The court held that the evidence was largely documentary, the investigation was nearly complete, and prolonged custody was unwarranted—especially as the maximum punishment was five years and bail is the rule, not the exception.
The court granted the anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety of like amount who shall be blood relation of applicant
Case Details
Case Title: DGGI Vs Het Ram Sharma
Date: 09.05.2025
Counsel For Applicant: Sh. Ramakant Kaur, Ms. Snhea Arya, Sh. Harshil Gaur, Meenakshi Sahu, Roopini Nandam, Ms. Sobiya Manzoor and. Pankhuri Tiwari
Counsel For Respondent: Karan Aggarwal
Read More: ETF or Mutual Fund Which Is better?
Mariya is the Senior Editor at JurisHour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
