Page 196 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

98 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
15 M/s. Shama Rani (i) 8930213110 (i) ravindersaini92@ 27,18,59,699 2,59,02,907
Shree D/o Som (ii) 8930213110 gmail.com
Ganesh Nath (ii) ravindersaini92@
Textiles gmail.com
16 M/s. Bala Amit (i) 9992000974 (i) panipat34@gmail. 46,74,65,654 3,15,75,414
Sundri Kumar S/o (Inder) com
Textiles Karmvir (ii) 9992000974 rkmittal2011rk@gmail.
Singh com
(ii) rkmittal2011rk@
gmail.com
17 M/s. Manish (i) 9773520234 (i) advocatesushil89@ 0 0
Ansh Kumar S/o 9992232605 gmail.com
Hospita- Mahender (ii) 9992232605 manishkandholpnp@
lity Singh gmail.com
(ii) manishkandholpnp
@gmail.com
18 M/s. Nirmala (i) 9050007237 (i) panipat34@gmail. 5,06,23,060 36,41,793
Nirmala D/o Ghan (ii) 9876360892 com
Interna- Sham (ii) rkmittal2011rk@
tional gmail.com

13. The aforesaid particulars would reflect that Rajesh Mittal has
played a pivotal role in the entire scam for the purpose of incorporating 18 dif-
ferent firms wherein in a majority of the firms, his e-mail ID or phone number
had been used. During the course of investigation, the police has been able to
collect evidence to the effect that bank transactions of withdrawal of
` 1,21,17,230/- was made in the account of M/s. Ansh Hospitality between 23-1-
2019 and 30-6-2019 and an amount of 1,21,21,881/- was deposited and for which
the Learned Counsel representing Manish, owner of the said firm, could not fur-
nish any justification as to on what count the said huge payments had been re-
ceived and as to what articles had been supplied by him against the said pay-
ment. Similarly, during investigation, it was found that bank transactions of
huge amount had been effected in the account of M/s. Shree Bala Ji Wooltax. The
Learned Counsel for the petitioner - Inder Partap Singh, owner of M/s. Shree
Bala Ji Wooltax, could not furnish any justifiable explanation as to on what count
the said payment has been received, as the said firm was not found to be actually
into business. The Learned State Counsel has informed that during investigation
this fact had been confirmed that the aforesaid firms were not into business and
that the amounts so received in their bank accounts had been withdrawn imme-
diately and had in fact gone back to the industries which had made the said
banking transactions.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complicity of the kingpin
Rajesh Mittal and also of Manish, owner of M/s. Ansh Hospitality and of peti-
tioner Inder Pratap Singh, owner of M/s. Shree Bala Ji Wooltax, is clearly evi-
dent. Keeping in view the enormity of the scam and the colossal loss caused to
the State exchequer, which has lost GST, this Court does not find any ground for
grant of bail. The petitions on their behalf, as such, are dismissed. As far as the
petitioner Satnarain is concerned, it is not disputed that he is an Advocate by
profession. It appears that he had rendered his professional services and assis-
tance for the purpose of incorporation of the firms. At this stage, it cannot be said
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  260