9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1218 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - purchase of Cigarettes - Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed of paid tax at the time of purchasing of cigarettes and was utilizing it for the sale of cigarettes - HELD THAT - The petitioner is directed to appear before the competent authority on 21.12.2020 at 10.00 a.m. or any other date or time as fixed by the competent authority. List again on 27.01.2021.
Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in proceedings initiated by respondent authorities. Analysis: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in response to summons issued by respondent authorities. The petitioner was earlier arrested and granted interim bail in a related matter. The allegations against the petitioner involved evasion of taxes causing loss to the state exchequer. The petitioner challenged the vires of Section 69 and 132 of the Act, arguing that criminal trial and arrest under these sections lack jurisdiction based on constitutional provisions. The court found merit in these arguments. The petitioner also filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the proceedings and allow the presence of their advocate during interrogation. The Supreme Court allowed the advocate's presence during interrogation. Subsequently, new summons were issued, leading to the petitioner's apprehension of arrest. Another individual was arrested during a raid at the petitioner's premises. The court directed the trial court to adjourn the case. The court considered a similar case where anticipatory bail was sought under Section 70 of the Act, emphasizing the importance of quantifying the amount under investigation. The court granted interim bail to the petitioner, subject to cooperation in the investigation. The petitioner's willingness to cooperate was highlighted. The court noted the petitioner's involvement in multiple cases of GST evasion but granted interim bail considering the circumstances. The court also directed the petitioner to appear before the competent authority on a specified date. The respondent argued against granting anticipatory bail, citing the petitioner's alleged involvement in multiple cases of GST evasion. The respondent contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender with serious allegations against them. The respondent highlighted the petitioner's evasion modus operandi involving fake firms and illegal GST claims. The respondent mentioned the petitioner's evasion amounting to over ?87.00 crores. The respondent stated that the petitioner evaded joining the investigation despite earlier summons. Both parties cited numerous judgments on anticipatory bail, leading to a decision to consider them in detail at the next hearing. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's repeated involvement in complaints from the same period lacked explanation from the prosecuting agency. The petitioner's legitimate purchase and sale of goods, along with the rejected refund claims by exporters, were highlighted as factors to be explained during the investigation. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the competent authority on a specified date and stayed the petitioner's arrest until the next hearing. The case was scheduled for a future date along with related proceedings.
|
