9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sixty Five and Ninety Paise) has been credited in the input account and the same has been taken as a benefit and thus committed a cognizable offence under section 132(1)(c) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (iii) That without outward supply of actual goods, on the basis of forged invoice, the input credit between the period October, 2017 to February, 2018 State Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax, worth Rs. 2,39,56,138.42/- (Rs. Two Crore Thirty Nine Lakh Fifty Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty Eight and Forty Two Paise) and under Integrated Goods and Services Tax worth Rs. 3,43,99,080.27/- (Rs. Three Crore Forty Three Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Eighty and Twenty Seven Paise) and as such committed an offence punishable under section 132(1)(b) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax, 2017. (iv) That the petitioner has wrongly adjusted the input credit on the basis of the above fraud committed by him and as such punishable under section 132(1) (e) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax, 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that F.I.R. has been filed without initiating a proceeding under section 73/74 of CGST/Jharkhand Goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g their own record with respect to closure of the business and surrender of the registration number by the petitioner has wrongly mentioned the same in the First Information Report, as per the document admitted between the parties, which has not been controverted by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the office of petitioner was already closed prior to the date of inspection, as such, any forgery committed by petitioner as alleged in the First Information Report is not sustainable in the fact of the case when the Department has itself accepted the surrender of petitioner's company in Jharkhand and closure of registration number. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the petitioner who has no criminal antecedent may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the case and has placed reliance upon the counter-affidavit filed by the informant dated 06.03.2019 relying upon para-7 to13 which reads as follows: "7. That it is submitted that according to enquiry report in the month of October, 2017 to February, 2018 according to GSTR 3B Total invoice value is Rs. 38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner has not explained the mode of payment of freight, therefore it needs detailed investigation by the investigating Agency in this matter. 12. That it is submitted that stock register and books of account must be maintained at the registered place of business for each and every transaction and the mode of payment of freight and mode of transportation has not been explained by the petitioner for each and every transaction. 13. That it is submitted that ACST-Singhbhum Circle Shri Kanchan Barwa had already issued DRC-07 on 02.02.2019." That it is submitted that according to enquiry report, in the month of Oct-17 to Feb-18, the total difference of ITC between GSTR-2A & GSTR-3B is Rs. 2,66,08,505.24 (Rs. Two Crore Sixty Six Lakh Eight Thousand Five Hundred Five and Twenty Four Paise) in IGST. That it is submitted that according to enquiry report, in the month of Oct-17 to Dec-17 the petitioner puchase according to GSTR-2A is Rs. 29,62,21,589.32 (Twenty Nine Crore Sixty Two Lakh Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Nine and Thirty Two Paise) and total sale according to GSTR-3B is Rs. 13,34,80,396.00 (Rs. Thirteen Crore Thirty Four Lakh Eighty Thousand Three Hundred N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has vehemently opposed and has submitted that pursuant to the notice dated 28.05.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Singhbhum or Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Singhbhum has not passed any order under Section 74 of JGST 2017 rather whatever he has submitted that is their internal document, which has nothing to do with adjudication under section JGST, 2017 is concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that the petitioner was subsequently found guilty by the DGCEI of Rs. 24,34,14,800.52/- (Rs. Twenty Four Crore Thirty Four Lakh Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Two Paise) and as such, petitioner is not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the materials brought on record. It appears that petitioner has been made accused in a case registered under sections 464, 468, 470 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 132(1)(c), 132(1)(e) and 132(1)(i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. State authorities have issued a notice prior to the institution of the case on 28.05.2018 after the inspection. Subsequent thereto the First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
