DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. JITENDER KUMAR

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 438

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Brief facts, as agitated by the DGGI, are as follows: 3.1 The officers of DRI Gandhidham and DGGI, acting on intelligence, intercepted 21 containers carrying smoking mixtures from Mundra Port, Gujarat on 3rd October, 2022. The samples taken therefrom were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), Kandla, wherein it was revealed that the aforesaid smoking mixture was a spurious product and not fit for human consumption. 3.2 Investigation was started and summons were issued to the exporter company, M/s Harsha International. However, the proprietor of M/s Harsha International, the present respondent, Jitender Kumar, did not comply with the aforesaid summons. 3.3 During search of the registered premises of M/s Harsha International, it was revealed that no business activity relating to export was being carried out and a kirana store was being operated by the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 and connected matters Page 2 of 9 dated 2nd February, 2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent accused Jitender Kumar. 2. CRL.M.C.4528/2023 has been filed by the petitioner DGGI seeking setting aside of the order dated 24 th April, 2023, whereby the learned ASJ has dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the DGGI seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent on 2nd February, 2023. 3. Brief facts, as agitated by the DGGI, are as follows: 3.1 The officers of DRI Gandhidham and DGGI, acting on intelligence, intercepted 21 containers carrying smoking mixtures from Mundra Port, Gujarat on 3rd October, 2022.

18. As regards the reversal of the Input Tax Credit of Rs.18,19,63,214/-, the learned ASJ has noted the debit entry dated 2 nd February, 2023 in the electronic credit ledger of M/s Harsha International and the IO could not deny the same. A perusal of the electronic credit ledger filed on behalf of the DGGI also confirms the aforesaid debit entry. 19. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with both the orders impugned in the present petition. 20. However, it is made clear that Jitender Kumar shall strictly comply with the conditions imposed vide order dated 2nd February, 2023, passed by the learned ASJ. 21. Though, this Court is confirming the anticipatory bail granted to Jitender Kumar, he is warned that in the future, if he does not appear pursuant to summons issued by the DGGI, his anticipatory bail would be liable to be cancelled.

However, the DGGI shall give a notice of at least 48 hours to appear pursuant to the issuance of summons.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 and connected matters Page 4 of 9 (CrPC) are not applicable to cases involving offences under the CGST Act. II. Jitender Kumar is involved in a serious economic offence relating to evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the tune of Rs.218 crores. III. In the present case, Input Tax Credit has been shown to be received on the basis of procurement of cigarettes which have been shown to be used as raw material to manufacture smoking mixture. It is pertinent to note that the prices of cigarettes are very high when compared to loose tobacco. Therefore, the aforesaid method is neither economically viable nor technically feasible and has been done only to commit fraud upon the exchequer. IV. The smoking mixtures seized at Mundra port were tested by CRCL, Kandla, wherein it has been established that the smoking mixture is a spurious product and not fit for human consumption. V. Analysis of the bank accounts of M/s Harsha International reveals that M/s Harsha International had obtained GST refund of Rs.198 crores, out of which, Rs.195 crores was transferred to M/s Radiant Traders. VI. Jitender Kumar has violated the conditions of bail as prescribed in the order dated 2 nd February, 2023 and therefore, his anticipatory bail should be cancelled. 5. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of Jitender Kumar has made the following submissions: I. The order passed in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) is distinguishable from the present case as in

CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 and connected matters Page 5 of 9 Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra), the accused persons were only summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act and there was no apprehension of arrest. However, in the present case, one of the co-accused Manish Goyal had already been arrested and therefore there was a genuine apprehension of arrest. Further, the order in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) was delivered after the grant of anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar and cannot have retrospective operation. II. The impugned judgment clearly records and correctly so, that the CRLC Report was inconclusive due to lack of testing facility and it has not been proved that the seized products were not made from cigarettes. III. The GST payable on purchase of cigarettes was duly paid by the accused persons and it is not the case of the DGGI that fake bills were made for the purchase of the cigarettes. IV. Merely on the basis that one of the consignments was found to be spurious, it cannot be assumed that all previous consignments were spurious as well. V. Jitender Kumar has reversed the Input Tax Credit of Rs.18,19,63,214/- taken by him, which has been recorded in the order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by the learned ASJ. VI. Jitender Kumar has moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order 14 th December, 2023 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against him. VII. None of the bail conditions has been violated by Jitender Kumar and all the submissions made by the DGGI were

CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 and connected matters Page 6 of 9 considered by the learned ASJ in the order dated 24 th April, 2023. 6. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. At the outset, I shall deal with the submission advanced on behalf of the DGGI that anticipatory bail could not have been granted to Jitender Kumar in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra). 8. In Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that if any person is summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act for the purpose of recording his statement, provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC cannot be invoked. In the said case, the accused persons were not appearing before the authorities despite repeated summons being issued to them and had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail. It was in those circumstances that the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. 9. In the present case, it has rightly been contended on behalf of Jitender Kumar that one of the co-accused persons, Manish Goyal, was arrested by the DGGI and therefore, there was a genuine apprehension of arrest. 10. Further, the order in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) was delivered on 17 th July, 2023, which is subsequent to the order dated 2 nd February, 2023 passed by the learned ASJ granting anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar. I find merit in the submission of the counsel appearing for Jitender Kumar that Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) cannot have retrospective operation.

CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 and connected matters Page 7 of 9 11. In any event, while considering the present petitions, this Court can exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which confers the power to grant pre arrest protection. Therefore, I do not find merit in the submission of the DGGI that Jitender Kumar could not have been granted anticipatory bail in light of Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra). 12. Hence, I proceed to consider the present case on merits. 13. From the material on record, it appears that Jitender Kumar was not the main player involved in the GST fraud and was acting on instructions from the main accused Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel.

It is the case of the DGGI itself that out of the receipt of GST refund of Rs.198 crores by M/s Harsha International, Rs.195 crores were transferred to M/s Radiant Traders. Even otherwise, Jitender Kumar has clean antecedents and has been co-operating in investigation and has given his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act. Therefore, I am inclined to sustain the grant of anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar. 14. Now, I shall deal with the submissions of the DGGI with regard to cancellation of bail on account of non-compliance of bail conditions. 15. The DGGI has contended that Jitender Kumar has not co-operated in the investigation after grant of anticipatory bail.

Operative decision and relief

CRL.M.C. 4528/2023 and connected matters Page 9 of 9 22. Liberty is given to the DGGI to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail in the event Jitender Kumar fails to appear in a timely manner pursuant to summons issued. 23. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. 24. Needless to state that any observations made herein are purely for the purposes of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. AMIT BANSAL, J. JANUARY 19, 2024 rt

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. JITENDER KUMAR concerns issue and context: brief facts, as agitated by the dggi, are as follows: 3.1 the officers of dri gandhidham and dggi, acting on intelligence, intercepted 21 containers carrying smoking mixtures from mundra port, gujarat on 3rd october, 2022. the samples taken therefrom were sent to the central revenues control laboratory (crcl), kandla, wherein it was revealed that the aforesaid smoking mixture was a spurious product and not fit for human consumption. 3.2 investigation was started and summons were issued to the exporter company, m/s harsha international. however, the proprietor of m/s harsha international, the present respondent, jitender kumar, did not comply with the aforesaid summons. 3.3 during search of the registered premises of m/s harsha international, it was revealed that no business activity relating to export was being carried out and a kirana store was being operated by the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in CRL.M.C. 4528/2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: Brief facts, as agitated by the DGGI, are as follows: 3.1 The officers of DRI Gandhidham and DGGI, acting on intelligence, intercepted 21 containers carrying smoking mixtures from Mundra Port, Gujarat on 3rd October, 2022. The samples taken therefrom were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), Kandla, wherein it was revealed that the aforesaid smoking mixture was a spurious product and not fit for human consumption. 3.2 Investigation was started and summons were issued to the exporter company, M/s Harsha International. However, the proprietor of M/s Harsha International, the present respondent, Jitender Kumar, did not comply with the aforesaid summons. 3.3 During search of the registered premises of M/s Harsha International, it was revealed that no business activity relating to export was being carried out and a kirana store was being operated by the… Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 438—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 438 and the decision date 2024-01-19; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. JITENDER KUMAR, the proceeding is CRL.M.C. 4528/2023, and the decision is dated 2024-01-19. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 438. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 69 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 70 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 438 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY