9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons, the ground of parity is not available here since accused, unlike the co-accused persons, despite his arrest in this case has not co-operated with the investigation and he even refused to give his statement. He even has not provided the Telly data in order to help in completing the investigation. There is nothing which accused has offered to deposit with the complainant in lieu of his evasion of GST - Parity also not available on the ground that accused firm has been most of the time falls under level 1 or level 2 but not paid any tax in cash but shown the same to have been paid in their returns. Furthermore, there are allegations against the accused that the total ITC passed on by the companies of R.K. Goyal is estimated to more than ₹ 180 Crore, including ITC passed/ circulated amongst his own companies. The gravity is to be judged by the impact, the offence has, on the society, economy and financial stability of the country. In the today s time when country is fighting with corona virus pandemic and struggling all over on the economic front such evasion and false claims have further pushed the country towards poverty, unemployment and starving. Such offence are c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2016) 44 STR 481 (Del.) = 2016 (9) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT , is not applicable in the present case due to the law laid down by Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the matter of P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India, reported as 2019-TIOL-873-HC-TELANGANA-GST = 2019 (4) TMI 1320 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . It is submitted that the Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. 32 Vs. Union of India, reported as (2016) 44 STR 481 (Del.) = 2016 (9) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the principle that the notice should be issued prior to arrest of person, this judgment was uphold by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2019 (22) G.S.T.L. J59 (S.C.) = 2019 (1) TMI 1293 - SC ORDER by way of specific order. The same has been dealt by the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Akhil Krishan Maggu Vs. Dy. Dir., D.G. of GST Intelligence, reported as 2020 (32) GSTL 516 (P H) = 2019 (11) TMI 942 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT . It is further submitted that COFEPOSA matter is already over and accused has also won in other cases filed by the department. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel that in Make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 135 = 2019 (5) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT 2. According to the brief fact of this case as stated on behalf of respondent, DGGSI. It is alleged that the companies owned and controlled by accused Rakesh Kumar Goyal have availed most of the amount of ITC from companies owned or controlled by said Rakesh Kumar Goyal himself. Thus, there was a complex web of circular trading among these companies which was used to pass on ITC, without any actual payment of GST at any stage. It is further alleged that the investigation in this case revealed that companies owned or controlled by the applicant have issued invoices to companies of Shri Vikas Chowdhary without any corresponding supply of the goods. There are allegations of fraudulent passing on of ITC by companies owned and controlled by Rakesh Kumar Goyal. These companies have passed on inadmissible ITC of ₹ 61.02 Crores (approx.) to M/s Aastha Apparels Pvt. Ltd., M/s JBB Apparels Pvt. Ltd., M/s JBN Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Nautilus Metal Craft Pvt. Ltd. controlled and owned by Vikas Chowdhary and Vikas Chandan. Firms of co-accused have taken refund of around ₹ 61 crores in this manner in which accused has been the benefici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigating agencies. Ld. counsel further refuted the bail on the ground of parity as the role of accused is of main accused and his company falls under Level-1. Applicability of judgement of Hon'ble Telangana High Court while differentiating with the ratio of the judgement in Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd to the facts of this case also pleaded. 5). In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for DGCI has placed reliance upon the following judgements: Crl. Appeal No.1938/2017 Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286 = 2009 (4) TMI 1031 - SUPREME COURT State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2) at page 31 = 2005 (9) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT Kanimozhi Karunanithi Vs. CBI Bail Application No.724 of 2011 decided on 08.06.2011 by Delhi High Court = 2011 (6) TMI 759 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 = 2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT , 6. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled by Hon ble Supreme Court and Hon ble High Court in innumerable judgements. The court whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention of Ld. Counsel about discharging of tax liability and willingness of the accused to reverse the blocked and unutilized credit amounting to INR 2,55,18,717/- Crores is concerned, the liability of accused is much higher in this case. As it alleged against him that in the commission of the alleged offence accused has claimed to have purchased the raw material but fail to produce any documents in this regard. In fact as alleged, no manufacturing was going on in the firms of the accused, statement of guard have been taken which shows there was nothing on the site to show any sort of manufacturing. Moreover 12 companies have been shown running on three addresses. Accused has been shown as the main offender who allegedly involved in large scale fraudulent passing on of ITC by companies owned and controlled by accused Rakesh Kumar Goyal himself. These companies have passed on inadmissible ITC of ₹ 61.02 Crores (approx). The manner and conduct of entire offence make it graver. Furthermore, there are allegations against the accused that the total ITC passed on by the companies of R.K. Goyal is estimated to be more than ₹ 180 Crore, including ITC passed/ circulated among ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our finding thatthe writ petitions are maintainable and despite our finding that the protection under Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., may be available to persons said to have committed cognizable and non-bailable offences under this Act and despite our finding that there are incongruities within Section 69 and between Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, we do not wish to grant relief to the petitioners against arrest, in view of the special circumstances which we have indicated above. Although Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Telangana dealt with the issue of pre-arrest bail but intention of Superior Court is clear from the above cases that offence of such nature are serious in nature in comparison to those where Govt. is deprived of what is due to them. But here in such cases of fraudulent ITC claims, as alleged against the accused, a huge liability is created for the Government. The act of such nature is termed as threat to the very implementation of law. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court thus also dealt with the protection under Section 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C.,, therefore giving show cause notice prior to the arrest is answered in this judgement. This Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
