9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 743 - HC - GSTAlleged fraudulent availment of inward ITC - attachment of bank accounts of petitioner - HELD THAT - Till date no proceeding under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been initiated by the Department nor any order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been passed for attachment of bank account of M/s. Shree Shyam Ji Traders, Delhi. Put up this case as fresh on 15.04.2021.
Issues: Allegations of fraudulent inward ITC, Arrest of Applicant, Authorization under Section 132(6) of CGST Act, Accused not being the main beneficiary
Allegations of fraudulent inward ITC: The main argument presented by the applicant is regarding the alleged fraudulent activity involving M/s. Shree Shyam Ji Traders, Delhi, who obtained fraudulent inward Input Tax Credit (ITC) from specific firms. The total amount involved in this fraudulent activity is stated to be &8377; 4.76 Crores. It is highlighted that the applicant, Sanchit Gupta, is accused of aiding Archit Agrawal, the proprietor of M/s. Shree Shyam Ji Traders, in this fraudulent activity. However, it is emphasized that Archit Agrawal, being the main beneficiary, has not been made an accused in the case. Arrest of Applicant: The applicant contends that he was illegally arrested after being summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act for recording his statement. It is argued that the responsibility of Archit Agrawal has been shifted onto the applicant, despite Archit Agrawal being the proprietor of the firm involved in the fraudulent activity. The applicant asserts that he is not the main beneficiary of the fraudulent ITC and questions the basis for his arrest in connection with the case. Authorization under Section 132(6) of CGST Act: The applicant challenges the authorization granted by the Additional Director General, DGGI, LZU, Lucknow under Section 132(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is alleged that the authorization was granted without due consideration and application of mind. The applicant raises concerns regarding the legality and validity of the authorization order dated 15.03.2021 in relation to the case. Accused not being the main beneficiary: The applicant argues that Archit Agrawal, as the proprietor of M/s. Shree Shyam Ji Traders, Delhi, is the main beneficiary of the fraudulent inward ITC. Despite this, Archit Agrawal has not been made an accused in the case, raising questions about the fairness and accuracy of the accusations and arrests made in connection with the alleged fraudulent activity. The applicant asserts that he should not be held responsible for the actions primarily benefiting another individual who has not been implicated in the case. In conclusion, the judgment addresses multiple complex issues related to allegations of fraudulent inward ITC, the arrest of the applicant, the validity of authorizations under the CGST Act, and the identification of the main beneficiary in the case. The arguments presented by both parties highlight discrepancies and raise questions regarding the legal proceedings and responsibilities assigned in connection with the alleged fraudulent activity. The court's decision on these matters will likely have significant implications for the parties involved and the broader interpretation and application of relevant tax laws.
|
