Case Details: Ripan Jain v. Additional Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana. (2025) 30 Centax 503 (P&H.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.
- Shri Aman Bansal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms Geetika Sharma & Kush Goyal, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner file the petition for pre-arrest bail in a complaint filed under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the GST Act, 2017. Allegations against him included the creation of firms engaging in fraudulent trading by issuing false invoices without actually supplying goods. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and had no role in the crime. Furthermore, he claimed that no formal complaint was provided to him and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
The petitioner contended that he was neither the proprietor nor a partner of the mentioned firms and had no involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. He also highlighted that he was ready to cooperate with authorities but sought protection from arrest.
During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was managing the affairs of the firms and using false invoices for trading, allowing him to claim significant tax rebates. Moreover, the petitioner was found to have been involved in transactions where invoices were issued for goods that were not supplied, benefiting from tax credits fraudulently.
High Court Held
Therefore the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition, citing the clear evidence of the petitioner’s complicity in the fraudulent activities. The testimonies, coupled with the fraudulent transactions involving fake invoices, demonstrated that custodial investigation was necessary to unearth further facts of the case. The court emphasised that the petitioner’s actions necessitated further investigation to reveal the full extent of the crime.
