GST Vidhi | GST Case Law

Case Summary: Kanika Dhingra v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25547 of 2024):

Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25547 of 2024

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 75)

Neutral Citation No.: 2024:AHC:142289

Date of Order: 2024

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Anoop Trivedi (Sr. Advocate), Mr. Nafees Ahmad

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Manish Goel (Sr. Advocate/ Additional Advocate General, U.P.), Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, Mr. Rishi Kumar, and Mr. Nitesh Srivastava

Facts of the Case:

This bail application arose out of three first information reports (FIRs) registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations involved fraudulent registration of fake GST firms using the PAN cards and Aadhaar cards of unsuspecting individuals. These fake firms were used to claim input tax credit (ITC) fraudulently.

The petitioner, Kanika Dhingra, along with other accused (including her husband, Sanjay Dhingra, and son, Mayank Dhingra), was implicated in the creation and operation of fake GST firms. Investigations revealed that significant financial transactions, amounting to crores of rupees, were conducted through these firms.

Main Issues:

·        Whether Kanika Dhingra, who was implicated based on financial transactions with fake GST firms, should be granted bail.

·        The petitioner’s connection to her husband’s and son’s companies, and the use of her bank account in fraudulent transactions.

Submissions by the Petitioner: The petitioner's counsel argued that:

·        Kanika Dhingra was neither named in the FIRs nor was there direct evidence of her involvement in the creation of fake firms.

·        The money transactions between her and her son’s company were legitimate, as the amount transferred to her was returned to her son’s account.

·        No direct involvement of the petitioner was found in the conspiracy regarding the registration of fake GST firms.

Submissions by the Respondent: The respondent’s counsel argued that:

·        The petitioner, along with her family members, was part of a larger conspiracy to commit GST fraud by registering fake firms using stolen PAN and Aadhaar cards.

·        The financial transactions in the petitioner’s bank account, involving crores of rupees, were suspicious and indicated her involvement in the crime.

·        The entire scheme involved fraudulent transactions, and all family members benefited from the illegal gains.

Findings and Judgement of the Court:

1.     Conspiracy: The Court found that the petitioner was implicated due to her financial transactions with firms involved in the GST fraud. Though not directly involved in the registration of fake firms, the petitioner’s bank account was used for suspicious transactions, which could not be justified as legitimate.

2.     Money Laundering: The Court observed that money laundering and fraudulent financial activities are common in organized crimes, and mere receipt and return of money could still implicate an individual if the source of funds is suspicious.

3.     Economic Offences: Economic offences such as large-scale fraud and ITC fraud were considered serious, and the Court noted that the petitioner’s involvement, even indirectly, posed a threat to the financial system.

4.     Involvement of Family Members: The petitioner’s husband and son were already implicated in the case, and the petitioner was found to have benefited from the fraudulent transactions. The Court considered this sufficient grounds to continue legal proceedings against her.

5.     Bail Denied: Based on the seriousness of the offence, the Court rejected the bail application, holding that the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent financial transactions justified her continued detention.

Conclusion: The Court found that despite the lack of direct involvement in the creation of fake GST firms, the financial transactions in the petitioner’s account indicated her complicity in the crime. The bail application was denied due to the severity of the offence and the petitioner’s indirect involvement in the fraud.

Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.