9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia [ 2019 (5) TMI 1610 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], which was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court without interfering into the order tagged it to be listed before the 3-Judge Bench in the case of Union of India v. Sapna Jain [ 2019 (6) TMI 58 - SC ORDER] and the said matter was pending till date, it observed that the question regarding anticipatory bail while dealing with offences under CGST was yet unsettled and as such decided the matter by exercising its own discretion. As the facts of this case are also similar to the facts of the above case, which were pertaining to fraudulently availing input tax credit, extending to more than Rupees Five Hundred Lakhs under Section 132 of the TGST Act, 2017 and the petitioners are also apprehending their arrest, it is considered fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the fulfilment of terms and conditions imposed - bail application allowed. - HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI For the Petitioners : Shri Pramod Singh, Sri V.C handrasen Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel. For the Respondents : Special Government Pleader representing Additional Advocate General. ORDER PER: This Criminal Petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by PS Jeedimetla against the Directors of M/s.AS Met Corporation Private Limited and three other companies including the petitioners' company. The petitioners' company and other companies approached National Company Law Tribunal (for short NCLT ) under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy code under CP(IB) No. 263/9/HDB/2022 and CP ((B) No. 247/9/HDB/2022. After hearing both the sides, NCLT by order dated 14.07.2022 ordered their applications. It was after the applications were ordered by NCLT, the Police Officials addressed a letter dated 26.07.2023 to the GST Officials requesting to furnish GST related documents of M/s. Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited and of other companies i.e. after the order was passed by the NCLT. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner (ST-II), Enforcement, O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, CT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad submitted reply dated 07.08.2023 vide Rc. No. DC-II/2023, alleging fake invoices on baseless opinions without any truth. It was only after the petitioners issued demand notice, M/s. KLSR lodged a frivolous complaint with all false allegations only to avoid payments. The GST Department was acting purely at the behest of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent suppressed the factum of pendency of civil case in NCLT and filed the complaint with an oblique motive attributing allegations against the petitioner of collusion, which was far from truth and was liable to be brushed aside in the light of the adjudication of the NCLT. 5.5. He further submitted that the petitioner supplied raw material to M/s. KLSR and raised invoices as per the prevailing practice. M/s. KLSR filed annual report before the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, duly signed by the Directors along with independent auditor's report up to the period 31.03.2021 wherein they had reported that there was no fraud played by the company or on the company for the financial year. The report further stated that physical stock and figures were tallying. Such being the statement of the complainant company, there was no fraud on the company even as per the annual report which was filed on 15.10.2022 i.e. much after lodging of complaint. It was not open for the company to take a different stand altogether as per their convenience to avoid making payments to the creditors including the petitioner. This would make it crystal clear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner No. 1 in Crime No. 539 of 2022 in Crime registered against the petitioners on the complaint lodged by M/s. KLSR appreciating the evidence on record. All the transactions pertaining to M/s. Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited were legal and on all the Way Bills, they had paid GST, which itself was a valid requirement to show that the business carried by them was lawful. It was nobody's case that M/s. Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited did not pay GST on the invoices which now were being disputed. Further all the transactions of M/s. Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited were being taken care by Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2, who was the Managing Director of the company, due to health reasons had been out of business for the past five years and petitioner No.3 was a family member and her job was only to take care of the discipline of the labors and housekeeping of the company and at no point of time she participated in any of the business transactions. As such petitioners 2 and 3 had no role to play. He further stated that the Petitioner No. 1 was the authorized representative for GST, which fact could be borne from the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The following allegations are made against the petitioners that they: (a) Fraudulently claimed Input Tax Credit of Rs. 5,24,58,071/- (IGST ITC) on purchases of Rs. 29,14,33,729/- from various taxpayers of Odisha. (b) Fraudulently claimed Input Tax Credit of Rs. 79,09,333/- (CGST + SGST) on purchases of Rs. 4,39,40,743/- from M/s. Diwan Engineering Works Rolling Shutters, GSTIN: 36ACHPA5582G1ZO. (c) Passed on Input Tax Credit of Rs. 1,98,05,596/- (CGST + SGST) on sales of Rs. 11,00,31,089/- to various tax payers of Telangana without movement of goods. 10. The 2nd respondent had also mentioned that the screen shots of RFID Data taken from E-Way bill portal would indicate that there was no movement of goods and the vehicles did not cross any of the toll gates during the course of transit. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not commit any offence under TGST Act, 2017 or any other Acts. The GST Officials had conducted raids on the office of the petitioners on 24.12.2023 and 26.12.2023 and seized books of accounts, Computer CPU, Laptop, document and records, loose slips and loose papers which were available at residential premises, factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tements and proposed the GST liability without proper investigation and without verification of the books of accounts and documents and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest. 13. On a perusal of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Tarun Jain v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI (cited supra), it considered the provisions of the CST Act, the powers of inspection, seizure and arrest prescribed under Chapter XIV of the Act, the provisions under Section 69 and 132 of the CGST Act and the judgment in P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India (cited supra) of this Court and the judgments in Shravan A.Mehra v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Anti Evasion, Commissionerate MANU/KA/0875/2019 and of the Delhi High Court itself in Raghav Agrawal v. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST Delhi North Bail Application 4019/2020 vide order dated 21.12.2020 and of the Bombay High Court in Sapna Jain vs. Union of India, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court without interfering into the order tagged it to be listed before the 3-Judge Bench in the case of Union of India v. Sapna Jain (2021) 2 SCC 782 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing interests included in an anticipatory bail application i.e., the liberty of the accused and the interest of the investigative authorities for discovering the particular of offence. It is the case of the Petitioner that he failed to appear due to his ill health, which evidently no more exists. The other ground pertains to apprehension of arrest, which can be removed by allowing the present application. It is very well possible that the respondent department might get the information as required if the Petitioner cooperates with the authorities concerned and arrest might not be necessary. 55. Custodial interrogation in the instant matter is neither warranted nor provided for by the statute. Detaining the petitioner in Judicial Custody would serve no purpose rather would adversely impact the business of the petitioner. Observing thus, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on stringent conditions. 14. As the facts of this case are also similar to the facts of the above case, which were pertaining to fraudulently availing input tax credit, extending to more than Rupees Five Hundred Lakhs under Section 132 of the TGST Act, 2017 and the petitioners are also apprehending their a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
