9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief facts as per the reply filed by the department are that a search was carried out on 02.06.2018 u/s 67(2) of CGST Act at the premises of KMG Industrial Traders Ltd as well as search was also conducted on 19.07.2018 at the premises of M/s Delta Agrotech, M/s Shriram Overseas and M/s Galus International and these firms are amongst the various vendors of M/s KMG Industrial Traders Pvt. Ltd. The premises of these three firms were found closed whereas at the address 51B, Ramesh Nagar, Sale purchase invoices, stamps and some other record pertaining to these firms were recovered and this premise belonged to one Gulshan Dhingra. The statements of various persons recorded. The firm who transported the goods i.e. Everest Road Lines was also not fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue. It is revealed in investigation that the amount of ITC availed by accused company KMG Industrial from the above three companies from July, 2017 to June, 2019 is approximately Rs. 23 crores. As per the averments in bail application, during search of premises of KMG no stock discrepancy was found and nothing incriminating was recovered. The alleged liability of Rs. 22.42 crores till date remained unadjudicated and no show cause notice has been received for last three years. The accused Pawan Kumar Goel already joined investigation on 06.08.2018 and his statement u/s 70 was recorded and accused no.2 Sushil Goel do not play any role in day to day purchase of KMG. Accused on the basis of meeting with the officials of CGST expressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case and does not lay down any proposition of law. Ld. SPP submits that Telangana High Court in case titled P.V. Ramannareddy Vs. UOI 2019 (25) GSTL 185 held that powers u/s 69 of GST for arrest is an exercise of statutory power and there cannot be any mandamus to prevent the officer to exercise such power and this judgment is upheld by the Apex Court. Bombay High Court in Ashish Jain Vs. UOI 2019 (29) GSTL 6 (Bombay) have therefore also not granted any protection from arrest. The judgment of Make My Trip is in context of service tax laws whereas the present case is falling under GST therefore not applicable, and this fact is comprehensively dealt by Rajasthan High Court in case titled Bharat Raj Punj Vs. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjusting the amount without any actual transportation to the tune of Rs. 80 crores is very serious thus not inclined to release the accused even on regular bail. The Apex court also upheld the judgment of P.V. Ramannareddy case passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana. The offence of fake ITC bill u/s 132 is not dependent upon the adjudication proceedings. Considering the seriousness of offence and the modus operandi in commission of said offence and the fact that it caused grave economic loss to exchequer, the applicants/accused Pawan Goel and Sushil Goel are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail hence the present application qua accused Pawan Goel and Sushil Goel stands dismissed. Copy of the order be given dasti. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
