9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior counsel for the CBI, has submitted a report in a sealed cover. As per the status report filed, one preliminary PE No.PE052021A0003 dated 16.11.2021 stands registered and thereafter, the investigation was carried out, the details of which is given in the report. As per the report, the department has already constituted a Special Investigating Team and 02 officers have been arrested, therefore, this Court find that there is no further scope for enquiry by the CBI. The report be kept in a sealed cover. In the order dated 13.10.2021, already an objection has been taken that second anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The operative part of the order dated 13.10.2021, reads as under:- The new ground set up by the petitioner in this 2nd petition is two fold: (a) The petitioner is a registered informer of General Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate (GST) i.e. respondent No.2 and has helped in unearthing many scams and GST Evasion for which he has been granted award. (b) The petitioner is enrolled as a G Card Holder by the Department of Customs on behalf of M/s. Safe Cargo Clearing Services and being a G Card Holder, the petitioner is assisting in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionerate of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana regarding the information/source which was given by the petitioner being G-Card Holder of M/s. Safe Cargo. The said Secret Note is taken on record as 'Mark A'. Reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Vrindaba Gohil, Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate, Ludhiana, along with the synopsis, filed in the Court is also taken on record. On merits, it is stated that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the earlier one was dismissed on merits. Reliance is also placed on an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Criminal) No.213 of 2021 titled as G.R. Ananda Babu vs State of Tamil Nadu and another , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the successive anticipatory application ought not to be entertained especially when the accused is absconding and not co-operating with the investigation and special reasons for change of circumstances cannot be invoked once it is rejected by speaking order that too by the same Bench. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has argued that on 09.04.2021, the consignment of prohibited goods was released/cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner Sunil Dutt under Section 108 of the Customs Act, for recording the statement, however, the petitioner Sunil Dutt, filed the first anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed and thereafter, on 29.09.2021, a complaint is filed under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, to procure the presence of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 has also submitted that till date, no bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner as he has only been given a notice under Section 104 of the Customs Act to appear and thereafter, another notice has been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, no arrest warrants has been issued, so far. It is, thus, submitted that the present petition be dismissed. In sharp contrast to the arguments raised by learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing for Anti-Evasion, Central Goods Service Tax, Commissionerate, Ludhiana i.e. respondent No.2 has argued that in the statement of the Incharge of the goods and conveyance i.e. one Krishan Mohan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that again on 15.04.2021, an information was sent to the Customs Department and again on 15.04.2021, by way of a confidential e-mail, it was requested that the matter may kindly be taken up with the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana, to ascertain the fact of case and to conduct further enquiry by the Commissionerate. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is very strange and surprising that 02 Departments i.e. Department of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana respondent No.1 and AntiEvasion Unit, Central Goods Service Tax, Commissionerate, Ludhiana respondent No.2, are fighting tooth and nail regarding fixing the liability as to how the consignment was cleared manually without making any entry by the Customs Department and as per stand of the Customs Department, there is a collusion of the official of the CGST Department with the petitioner and the other accused and in that process, the CGST Department is posing the petitioner as a Secret Informer/Source and has even filed a Secret Note under the signatures of Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, giving a clean chit to the petitioner S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was cleared, however, the petitioner was not approached by the party regarding payment of the custom duty. Later on, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the importer has managed to remove the consignment from ICD without paying the custom duty. Thereafter, in April, 2021, the Customs Department issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 for appearing and giving reply to the notice, however, the petitioner did not appear before the Department concerned as he was apprehending arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was in fact called by Sandeep Kumar, Inspector-ICD CONCOR (Import) to sought the services of the petitioner for a party, which was close to Sandeep Kumar, Inspector-ICD CONCOR (Import) and in that process, by showing aluminium scrap to be imported, certain documents were prepared by Sandeep Kumar, which were submitted before the Customs Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was neither approached by the party directly nor he had submitted any documents for the physical examination of the goods. Learned counsel for the petitioner further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
