In CRM-M-29703-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC grants regular bail to CA accused of borrowing UDIN from his colleague for uploading and issuing CA certificate after considering his five-month long incarceration, lack of criminal antecedents & stage of trial
Justice Aman Chaudhary [10-10-2022]

Read Order: Gaurav Dhir v. Central Goods and Services Tax

While dealing with an application Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to a Chartered Accountant (CA) who allegedly borrowed UDIN from his colleague (co-accused) for uploading and issuance of the CA certificate, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted regular bail to the accused-petitioner. 

In allowing the petition, the Bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary considered the fact that the investigation was completed and the challan was presented, as also the fact that the petitioner lacked criminal antecedents and in the present case, he was in custody since May 2022, was taken note of. 

The present petition was filed for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 132(1)(i) read with Section 132(1)(b)(c)(e)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 

The facts as stated by the petitioner’s counsel were such that the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant (CA) who subsequently gave up his practice, was paid a professional fee for uploading the refund of the Input Tax Credit. The petitioner borrowed UDIN from his colleague (co-accused) for uploading and issuance of the CA certificate. By a notice, the petitioner was summoned. In response, he appeared to join the investigation but was arrested there and then.  Thereafter, he was sent to the judicial remand and no request for police remand was sought by the respondent-Department. 

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery of the laptop and other relevant documents was already effected from the petitioner and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was already presented. The Counsel added that from the challan it was apparent that before the disbursal of the amount, the Range Officer had submitted the report after conducting physical verification marked on the system and recommended that a refund may be sanctioned. 

The Counsel further referred to the statement of the co-accused who had stated that he had engaged the petitioner to render professional service against payment of the fee. It was further his submission that there was no allegation against him that he in any way was the beneficiary of the excess Input Tax Credit, allegedly received by the companies. 

Per contra, the counsel for the respondent-Department submitted that a huge loss was caused to the department, though, certain bank accounts have already been frozen and certain companies have voluntarily refunded the amount due towards them. The Counsel stated that the department was still trying to figure out who else was involved in the case and proceedings against certain officials were also initiated. 

Considering the fact that the investigation was completed and the challan was presented as also the fact that the petitioner was not involved in any other case, and in the present case, he was in custody since May 2022, the Court held that further incarceration of the petitioner behind bars would not serve any useful purpose. Further, in granting regular bail to the petitioner, the Court also considered the fact that further incarceration of the petitioner behind bars would not serve any useful purpose. 

Thus, the present petition was allowed. However, the petitioner was directed not to tamper with the evidence during the trial and to surrender his passport, and not to leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court. He (the petitioner) was also directed not to change his residence without prior intimation to the Department and the trial Court and also not to pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. 

The petitioner was also required to furnish an undertaking by way of his affidavit before the trial Court that he will appear on each and every date fixed unless his presence is exempted by a specific order of the Court. The Trial Court was given the liberty to impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate.