9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, Ludhiana. It has been vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat by falsely and frivolously implicating him in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was just an employee of Gurbax Lal @ Happy Nagpal who was arrested by the respondents-State and hence, the petitioner was clandestinely implicated in this case. He has submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, petitioner has been alleged to be an abettor and an employee in some of the companies controlled and managed by co-accused Yashpal Mehta. It has been further alleged that two firms were registered in the name of petitioner which were controlled by Yashpal Mehta. However, no evidence has been produced substantiating the allegations levelled against the petitioner. He has further submitted that some officials from the CGST Ludhiana Department in connivance with the co-accused Gurbax Lal @ Happy Nagpal implicated the petitioner in this case. He submits that the co-accused Gurbax Lal @ Nagpal has already been enlarged on bail by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide order dated 22.11.2021. He submits that on 20.09.2022 at about 06:45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils of investigation has been explained in the reply. He submits that relying upon the intelligence that certain individuals were indulged in creating bogus firms and fraudulently availing and passing on ITC and thus, defrauding the Government Exchequer, an investigation was initiated by Anti Evasion (Headquarters), CGST Commissionerate Ludhiana. It is submitted that on the investigation it was found that 78 bogus firms were created and more than Rs. 1367 crores of bogus bills of outward supplies were issued in order to avail input tax credit of more than Rs.215 crores by the Controllers, Operator and proprietors of the firms. He has submitted that the investigation was commenced which resulted in the arrest of 10 key accomplices and kingpin of the scam i.e. Vishal Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Gurbax Lal @ Happy Nagpal, Rohit Mehta, Harsimranjot Singh Bambhi, Kawaljot Singh, Sukiran Tej, Rajesh Kumar @ Sonu @ Rajesh Pruthi, Ram @ Raman Chaggar (petitioner). Besides this, 39 firms/companies/partnership firms along with their proprietors, directors, partners, controller and operators have been prosecuted vide 02 prosecution complaints i.e. 15650/2021 dated 28.11.2021 and 92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duly made out against the petitioner and hence, petitioner has been rightly prosecuted for the same and thus, was arrested in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act. He has submitted that petitioner has committed non-bailable offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of CGST Act 2017 as the amount of ITC fraudulently availed was more than Rs.500 lakh of Rupees. He has submitted that the investigation in the case is complete and in all there are 22 prosecution witnesses but no witness has been examined till date. He further submits that the main accused Gurbax Lal has been granted default bail whereas co-accused Yashpal Mehta was granted anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel has also opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail and has stated that keeping in view the gravity of offence allegedly been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Heard. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been prosecuted in the complaint case No. COMA-92015-2022 CNR No. PBLD03-092667-2022 dated 18.11.2022. As per the complaint filed, the petitioner was found to be partner in M/s AR Intern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice or bill;] (d) collects any amount as tax but fails to pay the same to the Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due; (e) evades tax or fraudulently obtains refund and where such offence is not covered under clauses (a) to (d); (f) falsifies or substitutes financial records or produces fake accounts or documents or furnishes any false information with an intention to evade payment of tax due under this Act; (g) obstructs or prevents any officer in the discharge of his duties under this Act; (h) acquires possession of, or in any way concerns himself in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, supplying, or purchasing or in any other manner deals with, any goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act or the rules made thereunder; (i) receives or is in any way concerned with the supply of, or in any other manner deals with any supply of services which he knows or has reasons to believe are in contravention of any provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (j) tampers with or destroys any material evidence or documents; (k) fails to supply a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on shall be cognizable and nonbailable. (6)A person shall not be prosecuted for any offence under this section except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, the term "tax" shall include the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or refund wrongly taken under the provisions of this Act, the State Goods and Services Tax Act, the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act and cess levied under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act. Thus it is evident from the perusal of the above-mentioned statutory provision that the maximum punishment provided is five years. The petitioner has already completed an incarceration of more than one year. The veracity of the allegations and counter-allegations would be assessed by the trial Court on the basis of the evidences to be led by both the sides and thus, this Court would refrain from commenting anything on the merits of the case. However, confining itself only to the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
