The bail plea of perfume merchant Piyush Kumar Jain was denied on Friday by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Kanpur Nagar,
who is being prosecuted under the Central GST Act 2017 by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ahmedabad, Gujarat?
Jain home was raided by the DGGI Ahmedabad squad, which recovered around Rs 196.57 crore in December 2021. The DGGI team arrested Jain.
Jain stated in his plea that he was in the fragrance business and that his company’s name was M/s Odochem Industry. The DGGI team seized a total of Rs 196.57 crore from his home and office. The money was deposited by the DGGI team in the State Bank of India, Mall Road, Kanpur branch, and a fixed deposit was made. DGGI authorities stated that a large sum of money had been amassed through GST avoidance. Further Jain stated in his bail petition that he is willing to pay the GST amount that is alleged to have been avoided. He further claimed that he suffers from several conditions such as high blood pressure, glaucoma,
stress, and so on and that due to his poor health and the delay in the trial, he was willing to pay the GST department Rs 35.38 crore, including interest and punishment. As a result, Jain believes that DGGI officers should be directed to recover the GST payment from his seized fund.
The prosecution objected to the bail request, claiming that the investigation was still ongoing and so the necessary GST amount could not be calculated. The GST department was willing to accept voluntary payment from the accused but warned that the requested payment would be considered self-assessment by the accused. The ultimate dues would be computed by the GST department upon completion of the investigation and in accordance with the law, and hence Jain’s application would be refused.
The presiding judge stated in his order that because the inquiry is ongoing and the GST department has declared that it is willing to accept the payment of the applicant’s self-assessed dues, the accused is free to bring his written proposal for payment of dues before the statutory authority. Because there were insufficient grounds to admit the bail application, it is likely to be denied.