Sreya Kanugula
The Patiala House Court had refused anticipatory bail to the accused in a case of a wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The petitioner, Mrs. Lupita Saluja, had sought bail on grounds of her being a housewife and that she’s responsible for her two juvenile children. She made the submission that she was also handling the care and responsibility of her aged father and her old paternal grandmother.
In the submission, it was stated that in the year 2008, due to unfortunate circumstances her spouse Mr. Avijeet Saluja had suffered a brain hemorrhage. This had resulted in paralysis of half his body and at present, he wasn’t able to move his hands to sign any documents.
Due to the severe medical conditions of Mr. Saluja, the petitioner had been made the namesake director of the following companies, M/s Atlantic International Trading Pvt. Ltd, M/s Blue Star International Pvt. Ltd and M/s Sun Flame Trading Pvt Ltd., which her husband previously directed.
She had signed the documents related to the companies solely on her husband’s instructions and was altogether oblivious to all the business transactions that happened with the aforementioned companies and any other of their modalities.
The complainant had made the submission that investigation as per the CGST Act was being conducted against Mr. Saluja for a year and a half and while the investigation was taking place, the summons was issued against his companies and him and 5 raids were conducted at the applicant’s house as well as the companies’ premises.
The tax department had vehemently been opposed to the application for bail and built the argument that both the applicant as well as her husband had formed 5 fake export firms and were fraudulently availing ITC of over Rs. 45 crores on the weightage of fabricated invoices that provided false information through the E-way bill portal.
The Court comprising Mr. Dharmender Rana had considered the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offence’s committed. It had held that the application for instant bail was bereft from any of its merits and the same was accordingly dismissed.
The Court had further added that the offences of economic nature were to be treated as an autonomous class and hence, bail couldn’t be given routinely.