9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he post of director from Quenteco in the month of February, 2024. The summons dated 21.03.2025 has issued for attending on 22.03.2025. The summons was merely a witness summons to give deposition. In view of the same the GST department has not complied guidelines as laid down in the case of Radhika Agarwal V/s Union of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the provisions of CRPC/BNSS are applicable to the investigation that is to be held under GST. The GST department has failed to provide any summons to the applicant herein i.e. akin with a summons/notice under Section 41A of Cr. P. C./Section 35 of BNSS which is issued to the accused to remain present before the concerned officer for purpose of investigation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication on various grounds. It is stated that the applicant is responsible person and claimed fraudulent input tax credit from non-genuine entities for an amount of Rs. 11.15 crores. There is gross suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions entered into by tax payers and applicant that these were simply paper transactions with no actual purchase or delivery ever happened. The burden of proof to prove the same lies upon the applicant. The ITC of Rs. 11.15 crores claimed by tax payer is not correct and has been obtained fraudulently. It being economic offence affect the national interest in various ways. It is a distinct class and fall under the category of grave offences. The respondent has brought sufficient evidence about the involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmissible input tax credit by applicant around 5.51 crores. The applicant is in jail since long. She is a lady. During her judicial custody it appears no any inquiry conducted with her. It is stated by the applicant that applicant has no intention to avoid payment of GST amount. It appears that, the revenue is adequately secured. Thus it appears further custody of applicant is no more required. The arrest memo shows that accused was arrested on 29.03.2025 at 10:30 am hours and produced before court on the same day and sought her judicial custody. The grounds of arrest were explained to the accused and her father. The authorisation/order of arrest stated all the details of the case and grounds of arrest and delegated the powers to arrest und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
