Delhi court dismisses businessman’s anticipatory bail plea in tax fraud case

New Delhi, Jul 30 (PTI) A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a businessman accused of committing tax fraud by running a company through dummy persons, holding that the “corporate veil offers no refuge to tax evaders and scammers”.

Special Judge Aparna Swami noted that businessman Himanshu Mongia, who is involved in trading electronic items like mobile and mobile accessories, etc., was evading summons in the case and directed him to join the inquiry.

Mongia said in his application that he was issued summons a number of times by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in relation to its probe involving a company, Green Globe Enterprises, regarding alleged tax evasion in import-export business.

The applicant, however, could not appear before the probe agency due to prior engagements.

Mongia approached the court seeking anticipatory bail, claiming that he had nothing to do with the company.

The judge said in the order passed on July 25 that it was common knowledge that persons who commit economic offences often keep others at the front to shield their identity.

“When this happens, the investigating agencies and also the courts are not powerless to investigate, they should delve deeper and find out the real culprits who are remote-controlling business identity and committing white-collar crimes after keeping other persons at the front. The corporate veil offers no refuge to tax evaders and scammers,” she said.

She noted that the applicant had not joined the inquiry despite repeated summons.

“This court is of the view that ‘a person who wants that process of law should be followed, he should also follow and submit to the process of law’. Thus, this court observes that the application for anticipatory bail of applicant Himanshu Mongia is premature and hence, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed,” she said, directing Mongia to join the inquiry.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had opposed Mongia’s application, claiming that the applicant was evading the inquiry under law.