9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1152 - DSC - GSTGrant of anticipatory bail - Fabrication of documents with intention to avail and utilize inadmissible 'Input Tax Credit' and to avail the export benefits - section 132(1)(b, 132(1)(c) and Sec. 132(1)(e)(e) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - As per say of the respondent, present applicant, his father and brother have purchased goods worth ₹ 2.47 crores from M/s. Neha Impex and M/s. Rohini Impex. These two firms in turn have purchased, the goods from M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders. As per investigation till date M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders is not in existence. Further, prima facie record reveals, that the firms and companies of the applicant which are run by him along with his father and brother has evaded tax to the tune of ₹ 12.5 crores. Moreover, as reflected by statement of Sachin Gaiwkad he is not owner/proprietor of M/s Neha Impex. Further statement of Jagdish Bhikaji Chouhan, it is transpired that he is dummy proprietor of M/s. Rohini Impex. Considering the huge amount of tax evasion which has caused loss to the public exchequer, thorough investigation is required. Apart from this present applicant cannot pray for parity, while considering his prearrest bail on the ground that his father and brother are granted regular bail by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the parameters for consideration of regular bail and anticipatory bail are different. Bail application dismissed.
Issues involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in connection with alleged tax evasion and fraudulent activities related to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Analysis: 1. Allegations and Background: The respondent alleges that the applicant, along with his father and brother, engaged in fraudulent activities related to the export business, involving the creation of fictitious companies to avail inadmissible Input Tax Credit and export benefits. The father and brother were arrested under various sections of the CGST Act, leading the applicant to seek anticipatory bail to avoid arrest. 2. Applicant's Defense: The applicant claims to be a silent partner in certain firms, not directly involved in day-to-day transactions, and asserts that the businesses were legitimate. He maintains that he cooperated with the investigation, provided necessary documents, and his firms followed legal procedures in their transactions. The applicant denies the allegations and presents himself as a person of reputation. 3. Respondent's Position: The CGST Department contends that the applicant, in collusion with his family members, set up fictitious companies to evade taxes. They argue that the applicant did not fully cooperate during the investigation, causing a substantial loss to the government exchequer. The respondent highlights discrepancies in the applicant's statements and transactions, indicating a deeper conspiracy. 4. Court's Decision: After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court rejects the anticipatory bail application. The court notes the substantial amount of tax evasion and the lack of cooperation from the applicant and his family members in the investigation. The court emphasizes the need for a thorough investigation due to the gravity of the alleged offenses. The court also clarifies that the parameters for regular bail and anticipatory bail are distinct, denying the applicant's plea for parity with his father and brother's bail orders. The court concludes by rejecting the anticipatory bail application. 5. Legal Precedents: The court refers to various legal precedents, including cases like Harshad S. Mehta v. Union of India, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Naresh J. Sukhawant v. India, to support its decision and underline the importance of thorough investigations in matters related to tax evasion and financial fraud. In summary, the court denies the anticipatory bail application, citing the gravity of the alleged tax evasion, lack of cooperation in the investigation, and the need for a comprehensive inquiry into the fraudulent activities involving the applicant and his family members.
|
