CRL. O.P. NO. 7672 OF 2021 Date: 30.04.2021 BAJAN LAL BISHNOI @ ROHAN Vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI [5/11, 18:10] Sekarreporter1: GST – Bail – Ongoing investigation – Petitioner received commission for selling details of GST registration pertaining to defunct companies to other

[5/11, 18:10] Sekarreporter1: CRL. O.P. NO. 7672 OF 2021
Date: 30.04.2021
BAJAN LAL BISHNOI @ ROHAN
Vs
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
[5/11, 18:10] Sekarreporter1: GST – Bail – Ongoing investigation – Petitioner received commission for selling
details of GST registration pertaining to defunct companies to other individuals
who utilised the same for the purpose of raising fake GST invoices – whether the
act of the petitioner attracts section 132(5) of the CGST Act and is a cognizable
and non-bailable offence – HELD – the petitioner was acting as middleman is not
disputed – the petitioner was indulged in procuring the credentials of the defunct
companies at a price and passing them over to other individuals for higher amount
– it is accepted by the petitioner himself that he had procured the credentials and
given it to other persons for being utilised for creating fake/fraudulent transactions
– the petitioner was well aware that the said credentials would be used for fake
and fraudulent transactions. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance on this aspect.
Once the petitioner, on clear and proper thinking, has obtained the credentials of
defunct firms and handed over the same to the other persons for being misused
for cheating the exchequer, the petitioner cannot absolve himself from the said
offence by holding that he is only a middleman – the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
cautioned the High Courts against grant of bail, where probe is yet to be
completed, more so in cases involving GST – The case is at preliminary stage and
enlarging the petitioner at this point of time on bail would be detrimental to
investigation. Further, without petitioner role as middleman, the crime could not
have been perpetrated. The nexus of very many persons within the administrative
framework could not be ruled out and a proper and full-fledged investigation is
necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy involved – the Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner – the petition is dismissed