9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant of his involvement in the commission of the crime. At the time of arrest, applicant was informed about the grounds of his arrest. Applicant was present at the office of respondent and his statement was recorded, this shows that applicant was aware about the matter against him. There is no violation of guidelines of Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of ARNESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ANR [ 2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT] . Further, this cannot be a sole ground to grant bail in such an offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant bail. In the matter of DAULAT SAMIRMAL MEHTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS [ 2021 (2) TMI 762 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is concerned, in this matter, investigation w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant has engaged himself into availment and utilisation of ineligible Input Tax Credit(ITC) on the basis of fake invoices issued in the name of or by several fake/non-existent firms to the tune of Rs.10 Crores. Accordingly, investigation started. On 26/11/2021, officer of the respondent visited the business place of the applicant. At that time, he did not provide any documents. Thereafter, he was called on 03/12/2021. However, he was absent. Again, he was called on 08/12/2021 and at that time, his statement was recorded. Initially applicant did not disclose or admit of his involvement and he informed only that he has purchased goods through brokers. He never visited or met with any person of those fake/non existent firms. During investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced his reliance on the judgment pased by our Hon ble High Court in the matter of Daulat Samirmal Mehta V/s. Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. Writ Petition No.471 of 2021(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), order dt.15th February 2021 . He requested to enlarge the applicant on bail on any terms and conditions. 4. On the contrary, learned SPP Natrajan for respondent No.1 opposed the application. He argued that investigation is still in progress. Suppliers of the applicant are found to be fake/non existent. In the investigation conducted by the respondent on the basis of credential of several suppliers of goods linked with M/s.Noor Timber owned by the applicant, there is every possibility that respondent will trace other fake su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is matter, investigation was going on for more than two years and thereafter, there was arrest of the applicant. After arrest of the applicant, he immediately filed application U/s.138 of CGST Act for compounding of offence. He was released on bail upon certain conditions including deposit of Rs.25 Crores. In the present matter, applicant has not shown his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Applicant has not disclosed name of the broker through whom he received fake invoices. Suppliers of the applicant are fake/non existent. Investigation is started just prior to one month of arrest of the applicant. Investigation is still in progress. Therefore, ratio laid down in the cited judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
