9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e against the applicant/accused. It is apparent that the goods worth ₹ 2.47 Crores were allegedly purchased from M/s. Neha Impex and M/s. Rohini Impex. They had in turn purchased the goods from M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders. As per the investigation, M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders is not in existence. The firms and the companies of the applicant which are conducted by him along with his father and brother had according to respondent evaded tax. Sachin Gaikwad has stated that he is not owner or proprietor of M/s. Neha Impex. Statement of Jagdish Chauhan also transpired that he is dummy proprietor of M/s. Rohini Impax. Owners of M/s. Neha Impex and M/s. Rohini Impex have stated that they have not provided any goods to applicant. Payment to Neha Impex M/s. Rohini Impex - evidence of legal commercial contract or not - HELD THAT:- The submission about payment to M/s. Neha Impex M/s. Rohini Impex cannot be considered to be evidence of legal commercial contract since they have never conducted any business. They have not sold goods. There is no infirmity or illegality in summons issued by respondents. No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out - Bail application dismissed. - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icated in this case. The father and brother of the applicant were already arrested and they were granted bail. The applicant along with his father had incorporated four companies, namely, M/s. Alliance Corporation, M/s. Tex Fab India, M/s. Fab India Exports and M/s. Nagaria Exports and they are in the business of ready-made garments. The applicant is silent partner in the firms. Goods were purchased from M/s. Neha Impex M/s Rohini Impex for the purpose of export in the month of September, 2020. The applicant and his father never met proprietors of M/s. Neha Impex and M/s. Rohini Impex and all purchase transactions had taken place through brokers. After following due procedure, goods were exported and the amount was realized from buyers. The applicant is relying upon the bank statements evidencing the payment made to M/s. Neha Impex and M/s. Rohini Impex and payment received from the buyer. Reliance is also placed on the copies of lorry receipts and shipping bills which shows the movement of goods. It is therefore contended that the purchases from M/s. Neha Impex M/s Rohini Impex were legitimate transactions and all the purchased goods had been exported. The applicant is willing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipts which are placed on record substantiate the contention of the applicant that the transactions are legitimate. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi delivered in the case of Lupita Saluja Vs. DGGI and Anr . It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the Court had observed that the material on record establishes that the suppliers have supplied goods to the company and it is misconceived that the suppliers were non existent. In the present case it cannot be said that there were no actual transactions. Goods were purchased and the same were exported which is evident from the amount deposited in the account. Learned counsel also relied upon decision of Karnataka High Court, in the case of Shravan Mehra Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax, Anti Evasion, GST Commissionerate, Bangalore. In this case anticipatory bail was granted on the ground that maximum punishment is five years and taking into consideration magnitude of offence and it is not punishable with death or improsonment for life. Offence is compoundable with authority. He relied on and the decision of the High Court for the State of Telangalana at Hyderabad i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , his father and brother. From E-way bills issued by M/s. Neha Impex M/s. Rohini Impex, it is seen that the four firms in which the applicant is a partner, has been issued invoice showing total assessable value as ₹ 130.90 Crores and the total tax in respect of the said transaction is 8.08 Crores. The details of the transactions are provided in the affidavit-in-reply. It was also submitted that out of the amount of ₹ 130.90 Crores payable by the firms of applicant to M/s. Neha Impex M/s. Rohini Impex an amount of 14.87 crores has been paid till date. M/s. Neha Impex M/s. Rohini Impex have not provided any goods to the applicant. The applicant is yet to pay 116.03 Crores to the so-called suppliers whereas the said suppliers have denied ever having supplied any goods to the applicant's firms. The applicant has to pay amount of ₹ 116.03 Crores to the suppliers. Suppliers have not paid any tax on goods. He further submitted that the facts clearly prove that the applicant had procured the invoices from the said two firms. The said firms have been created only to facilitate the procurement of invoice and to evade tax. The entire benefit of illegal activities o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (2) of said Section. The CGST Act, 2017 is a self contained Act, and the commissioner of CGST Act, 2017 is authorized and bestowed with the powers to arrest a person if he has reason to believe that the said person has committed an offence which is liable to punishment under Section 132 (1)(i) of the Act. The act also provided the safeguard of liberty to the person arrested in as much as the person arrested has to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. 7. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.4322-4324/2019 filed by the Union of Indian challenging the ad-interim relief granted by the Bombay High Court in the case of Union of Indian V/s. Sapana Jain others vide its order dated 29th May, 2019 has held as under :- We make it clear that the High Court s while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that this court by order dated 27th May, 2019 passed in SLP (Crl) No. 4430/2019 had dismissed the SLP filed against the Judgment and order of the Telangana High Court in a similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case . 8. Consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iend Mourya, who in turn introduced him to Sameer Sayeed Patel for the purpose of opening bank account with ICICI Bank. He provided blank cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to Sachin Gaikwad he did not obtain any GST registration number. Blank cheques were provided according to Sameer Patel. He had not obtained any registration number. The statement of Jagdish Chauhan, would indicate that several questions were put to him. He stated that he was approached by Sameer Patel, who offered him job of collecting documents for the purpose of opening Current account and rent agreements. He was paid salary of ₹ 15000/-. He was informed by Sameer Patel that he wish to open a firm M/s. Rohini Impex in his name. He allowed him to do so and opened the firm M/s. Rohini Impex. He had not signed any cheques or RTGS forms for the said account. He also stated that M/s. Neha Impex was created by Sameer Patel. He do not know any person Sachin Gaikwad and that they do not own the premises situated at A-1, Room No.8, Om Shivai CHS Ltd. Devipada Lane, Near Gulmohar Society, Borivali East. Thus, prima facie there is sufficient evidence against the applicant/accused. It is apparent that the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
