9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 633 - HC - GSTGrant of anticipatory bail - Validity of summon order issued - each and every document is with the GST authority - wrongful availment of GST Credit - HELD THAT - The petitioner has merely been summoned so as to tender statement. If there is delay in concluding such proceedings it per se may not be a ground to quash the summoning order unless there are other attending circumstances requiring Court s interference. The order dated 10.06.2022 passed in the anticipatory bail of the petitioner is also part of the record. The Court has dealt with in quite detail as to what the allegations are. This Court does not see any reason to make any interference - Petition dismissed.
Issues involved: Challenge to summoning order u/s 70 of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence.
The petitioner challenged the summoning order issued u/s 70 of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 by the Senior Intelligence Officer. The petitioner contended innocence, compliance with previous summons, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of legal evidence against him. The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that summoning him again after a long gap violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also highlighted inefficiencies in the GST authority's investigation and the availability of all relevant documents with them. During the hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner and co-accused had previously applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 10.06.2022. The Court noted that the allegations involved undue taking advantage of Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fake documents, gravity of the offense, need for interrogation, repeat offense, and tampering with evidence. The Court, based on the seriousness of the allegations and preliminary investigation confirming them, rejected the anticipatory bail application. After considering the submissions and the record, the Court found no grounds for interference in the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed at the stage of admission itself, stating that there was no reason for intervention, and the petition was dismissed in limine.
|
