9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de of Criminal Procedure with allegations of 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 - From the counter-affidavit, it appears that petitioner has not made payment to the respective sellers from which the petitioner has purchased the materials rather he had made payment to another firm namely M/s Jai Hanuman Metallicks which is sufficient to substantiate that the petitioner has done total fake transactions to take huge amount of input tax credit on the basis of forged documents which needs detailed investigation. In view of such serious nature of the case and from the counter-affidavit filed by the Investigating Agency/State Police stating therein that accused petitioner has created fabricated rental paper and other document to show forged address in Jharkhand but during investigation, no such place was found there, it is apparent that the petitioner has created fabricated documents - the Investigating Officer has found that petitioner has created forged and fabricated papers without any inward supply of materials and by showing forged bill where no consignment number, veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and Services Tax Act which is mandatory before institution of a criminal case and placed reliance on the judgment of M/s Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise and Ors. decided on 04.04.2019 by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the informant has filed this case under misconception. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards section 74 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise and Ors. This issue has also been settled by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of MAKEMYTRIP (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India & Ors affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. From the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been hurridly filed which was not maintainable at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows: "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 ₹ 38,25,50,875.29, Taxable Value is ₹ 32,41,95,656.60, IGST of ₹ 3,43,99,080.27, CGST of ₹ 1,19,78,069.21, SGST of ₹ 1,19,78,069.21. 8. That it is submitted that according to enquiry report, in the month of October, 2017 to December, 2017 the petitioner purchase according to GSTR 2A is ₹ 29,62,21,589.32 and Total Sale according to GSTR 3B is ₹ 13,34,80,396.00, from the above figure it is clear that the stock remaining with the petitioner as on 31.12.2017 is ₹ 16,27,41,193.32. Now the question arises that the petitioner is claiming that he possess no godown then how it is possible the as per record of GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B as on 31.12.2017 the remaining goods with the petitioner is to the tune of ₹ 16,27,41,193.32. The petitioner statement of GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and claim of transit sale is of contradictory in nature. 9. That it is submitted that according to enquiry report, in the month of January, 2018 to February, 2018 has purchased according to GSTR-2A ₹ 7,96 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enty Nine Crore Sixty Two Lakh Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Nine and Thirty Two Paise) and total sale according to GSTR-3B is ₹ 13,34,80,396.00 (Rs. Thirteen Crore Thirty Four Lakh Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six), from the above figure it is clear that the stock remained with the petitioner as on 31-122017 is of ₹ 16,27,41,193.32 (Rs. Sixteen Crore Twenty Seven Lakh Fourty One Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three and Thirty Two Paise). Now the question arises that the petitioner is claiming on the ground that even without having any godown, how it is possible that as per record of GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B as on 31-12-2017, the goods remains with the petitioner is to the tune of ₹ 16,27,41,193.32 (Rs. Sixteen Crore Twenty Seven Lakh Fourty One Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three and Thirty Two Paise). The petitioner's statement of GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and claim of Transit sale are contradictory to each other. It is submitted that according to enquiry report in the month of January-2018 to February 2018, petitioner has purchased according to GSTR-2A ₹ 7,96,87,508.76/- (Rs. Seven Crore Ninety Six Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Eight and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal 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 Information Report has been lodged. It appears that the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the case has been registered before adjudication of the matter and passing an order under section 74 of the JGST Act of 2017 and in view of the judgment of M/s Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise and Ors. as well as MAKEMYTRIP (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India & Ors, the entire proceeding is non-sustainable in the eyes of law. The present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail under sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with allegations of 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. After inquiry, the Director General of DGCEI has found this petitioner liable for sale of goods between 20.01.2018 to 28.02.2018 and as such, the objection tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
