1
B.A.No.229 of 2022
CNR:MHCC02-001096-2022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GR.BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.229 OF 2022
IN
REMAND APPLICATION No.09 OF 2022
Ubaid Shiraj Shah
Age:24 years, R/at. Shop
No.R WG/194, Charkop
Ganesh Nagar, Link Road,
Opp. Ekta Nagar Bus Stop,
Kandivali(W), Mumbai:67.

.. Applicant
V/s.
Union of India
through CGST and C. Ex.
Thane Commissionerate
Investigating officer/Inspector
.. Respondent
Appearances:
Adv. Arjun Amanchi for applicant.
SPP Atul Surpande for respondent.
Coram : R. M. Sadrani
Addl. Sessions Judge
C.R. No.37.
DATED : 10th February 2022.
ORDER
1
This is second application U/s.439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure(hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.) for the grant of bail to
the applicant Ubaid Shiraj Shah for the violation of Section 132(1)
2
B.A.No.229 of 2022
(b) and (c) r/w. 132(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act
2017(hereinafter referred to as CGST Act)..
2
The case of the prosecution is that the applicant is
proprietor of M/s.Shah Enterprises. Applicant is engaged in
network of entities in availing and passing of fake Input Tax
Credit(ITC) without any actual supplies of goods and therefore,
fraudulently making loss of revenue to the Government, thereby,
the accused has violated the provisions of CGST Act, 2017. During
investigation, it is transpired that the suppliers of applicants
company are fictitious/non-existent firms formed with malicious
intent to avail and pass on inadmissible Input Tax Credit(ITC) on
the basis of fictitious/bogus invoices. There are 27 suppliers as
informed by the applicant and revealed from the documents of the
applicant. However, out of them, the GSTIN number of 14 suppliers
have been found cancelled/suspended. The total amount of ITC
which is fraudulently availed is Rs.5,90,28,310/- and therefore,
amount
of
ITC
utilized
is
Rs.5,90,28,310/-.

Under
these
circumstances, total amount of ITC involved in the commission of
the offence is Rs.11,80,56,620/-.
3
Learned Adv.Arjun Amanchi for the applicant argued
that applicant is aged about 24 years and recently married. He is
arrested on 03/01/2022.

Allegation against him is that he has
availed ineligible ITC to the total amount of Rs.5.90 Crores from
the period January 2021 to November 2021. Applicant is scrap
trader. Applicant has maintained record of movement of the goods
3
B.A.No.229 of 2022
and same has been provided to the respondent. Bank statement of
the applicant is also provided. Amount paid by the applicant to the
suppliers are through banking transactions. Details of the buyers
are provided to the respondent by the applicant who are mill
owners.

Similarly, detailed information of the suppliers is also
provided. Applicant is ready to freeze the amount of the suppliers
to the tune of approximately Rs.80 lakhs which is outstanding. He
requested that applicant be enlarged on bail on any terms and
conditions.
4
On the contrary, learned SPP Atul Surpande opposed
the application that there are 27 entities/suppliers, out of them, 14
entities are fake/non-existent. Detailed investigation is in progress.
There is chain of passing of ITC involved and investigation to that
effect is in progress. If the applicant is released on bail, he may
alert those fake suppliers or tamper with the documents. Huge loss
is caused to the exchequer. Argument advanced by the learned
advocate for the applicant is restricted to the suppliers who are in
existent and their transactions are genuine. However, out of 27
entities, 14 are apparently bogus as revealed in the investigation
and their transactions are bogus. It is requested to reject the
application.
5
After hearing both the sides, I have gone through
record. Offence committed by the applicant is economic offene
which is well planned. In the investigation of the respondent, non
existent/fake suppliers were noticed. Applicant availed benefit of
4
B.A.No.229 of 2022
ITC on the basis of fake invoices. Investigation is till in progress.
There is documentary evidence against the applicant of his
involvement in the commission of the crime.

Therefore, in my
opinion, it is not a fit case to grant bail. Hence, I pass following
order.
ORDER
1
Bail Application No.229 of 2022 is hereby rejected and
disposed off accordingly.

( R. M. Sadrani )
Addl. Sessions Judge, Sessions Court,
Dated :10/02/2022.
Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on
:10/02/2022.
Transcribed on :10/02/2022.
Signed on
:11/02/2022.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.
UPLOADED ON: 16/02/2022.
TIME:10.45 a.m.

(Santosh B. Sawant)
(Selection Grade Stenographer)
Name of the Judge(with Court Room Shri. R. M. Sadrani, Judge, C.R.No.37.
No.)
Date
of
pronouncement
Judgment /Order
of 10/02/2022.

Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
11/02/2022.

Judgment/Order uploaded on
16/02/2022.