West Delhi GST Commissionerate rejects allegations on irregularites in probe 
Reports Rakesh Chitkara, Advocate
Date: 09/03/2020
In the biggest case detected so far of fake invoices by West Delhi GST Commissionerate the Department strongly opposed the unusual application filed last week in the Court of CMM, Patiala House, New Delhi, demanding a Court Monitored Inquiry by Magistrate into the investigations being conducted by the Commissionerate. Allegation is that out of the four accused, the main beneficiary kigpin, Parvesh Jain was let off while the poor employees were arrested from whom no recovery can ever be made and that the accused were kept under detention for more than 24 hours while being produced before the Magistrate.
Case was listed on Saturday again for arguments on maintainability of the application. Applicant, a lawyer named Sharad Shingade and Ors. filed an amended application u/s 200 of Cr. PC seeking preservation of CCTV footage being relevant to the inquiry by the magistrate.
It was alleged that Police records indicate that certain calls were made by a close relative of the kingpin to the Police alleging his unlawful detention but the GST Officials had communicated to the Police Officer who went to enquire that he had been placed under arrest. This was then officially conveyed by the Police Officer to his seniors and is on record.
Such a claim has vociferously been rejected by the Commissionerate stating that no sanction to arrest had been granted in the case of Jain and that persons arrested were not mere employees but were willfully involved for benefit. The CCTV footage will actually establish that all the arrested persons were produced on the same date of arrest.
Seriousness of the matter was reflected in the entire top brass of the Commissionerate being present in the Court to resist this application. Sr. PP Mr. Satish Agarwala who appeared in the place of Adv. Harpreet Singh, vehemently opposed the plea while questioning the locus standi of the applicant. He asked the Court to seek an affidavit on the veracity of such allegations.
A curious feature was the strong opposition by the Counsels representing an arrested accused to such an inquiry. In turn, the applicant expressed surprise as to why should the Counsels of those arrested oppose the motion as it stood to benefit their client. Both the counsels heatedly questioned the bonafides of each other. Case now listed for 12th for orders.