9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to detain beyond 15 days period if satisfied that the grounds are made out. However, he would not be able to authorize detention for a total period exceeding 60 days. In the present matter, petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 28.04.2021 that he has already paid an amount of 45,00,000/- and that he would deposit 5,00,00,000/- under protest towards the alleged amount of tax evasion to demonstrate bona fides and that it would be subject to, adjudication of the amounts alleged and rights and remedies of the petitioner. Bail application allowed subject to conditions imposed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the petitioner the allegations in the remand application are without any details as to the invoices, alleged illegal availment of ITC, details of calculations of GST liabilities. With reference to the application, the petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody until 07/04/2021. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, the statement of petitioner had been recorded by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 had purportedly filed reply to the bail application on 01/04/2021 and on 06/04/2021 the Magistrate had rejected the bail application of the petitioner. The petitioner had been produced before the Magistrate and his remand had been extended and petitioner continues to be in judicial custody. 6. Mr. Ponda, learned senior advocate appearing for petitioner contends that it is well-settled that a bail would normally not refused unless there is some evidence warranting that a bail would not secure presence of convicts on judgment or if there is likelihood of interfering with witnesses for prosecution or would be polluting the process of justice. Petitioner has all along being cooperative right from the day of search and seizure and has always responded to and appeared as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The object of purpose of CGST Act basically is to levy, secure and recover tax and its purpose is economic and is not to penalize a person. Collection of revenue being the central objective, the arrest is incidental to achieve the said purpose. Referring to section 138(3), it has been contended that the same prohibits further proceedings against the accused in respect of same offence and any criminal proceedings initiated would stand abated. 12. Mr.Ponda, learned senior advocate contends, despite cooperation and payment, the petitioner has been put under arrest for alleged non-payment of GST and alleged illegal availment of ITC. It has been contended that the government has no authority to take extra-legal steps to collect tax and cannot resort to coercion for payment of amount not legally payable and such resort is deprecated and exactly the government is doing the same thing by putting petitioner under arrest using the power as a tool to coerce the petitioner to pay the amount not legally due. It is submitted that the allegations and statements in the remand application and reply to the bail application about conduct of the petitioner are with a view to create prejudice agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evaded tax in excess of ₹ 9.90 Crores as per the investigation carried out so far and there are indications of finding more evasion of tax. It is alleged that the modus operandi has been conspired at the instance of the petitioner. Investigation is at crucial stage. If petitioner is released, he will tamper with evidence, influence witnesses and derail / tamper the investigation proceedings. Government revenue is at stake. As such, the petition is opposed. 16. Learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ponda submits that in the case of Sunil Kumar Jha Vs Union of India & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No.5484 of 2021) and Akshay Chhabra Vs Union of India & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No.5486 of 2021) in the order dated 11th March, 2021, the court has taken stock of the situation and relevant facts therein are also similar to the ones in present matter. In said case as well, the petitioners therein had responded to the summons and duly attended the office of the respondent. As such, while the petitioner has been cooperating with the respondents and has been responding, there is no justification for keeping petitioner in custody. It is contended that the maximum penalty for the alleged off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untant of GSTL, had attended the office of respondent no. 2. He had been interrogated and information had been solicited from him about the company, its directors, office locations etc. which had been duly provided. Even two emails had been issued providing various details viz. tally and ledgers etc. GSTL had, in the meantime, deposited a sum of ₹ 45 lakhs. 19. Thereafter, petitioner had been summoned on various dates viz. 09/03/2021, 12/03/2021, 17/03/2021, 19/03/2021, 22/03/2021 and 23/03/2021 and barring a day while petitioner had undergone angioplasty, he had attended rest of the dates between 9/03/2021 to 23/03/2021. When petitioner attended the office of respondent no. 2 on 23/03/2021, he was arrested purportedly in exercise of powers under section 69 of the CGST Act imputing commission of offences under sections 132(1)(a),(c),(d) and (f) punishable under clause (i) of section 132(1). On the next day, he was produced before the Magistrate at Belapur seeking remand of petitioner in judicial custody. In Daulat Mehta's case (supra), the Division Bench has taken stock of bail jurisprudence evolved over the years. The court has also considered that case of P.V.Ramana Reddy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been justification to arrest the petitioner. Apart from that the court also found that there had not been any evidence about petitioner's tampering with the documents or trying to influence the witnesses, observing that mere allegation is not sufficient. The court also went on to consider section 167 and had considered that under said provision a person cannot be kept in detention beyond a total period of 60 days where investigation relates to offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and that the Magistrate is authorized to detain beyond 15 days period if satisfied that the grounds are made out. However, he would not be able to authorize detention for a total period exceeding 60 days. 22. In the present matter, petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 28.04.2021 that he has already paid an amount of ₹ 45,00,000/- and that he would deposit ₹ 5,00,00,000/- under protest towards the alleged amount of tax evasion to demonstrate bona fides and that it would be subject to, adjudication of the amounts alleged and rights and remedies of the petitioner. Another additional affidavit is filed on 06/05/2021 stating that in addition to aforesaid amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
