2021 (9) TMI 549 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - GST

Head Note / Extract:
Grant of anticipatory bail - availment and utilization of inadmissible Input Tax Credit - availment of fraudulent export benefits - Fake firm - dummy proprietor - evidence of legal commercial contract - Section 132(1)(b), 132(1(c) and Section 132 (e)(e) of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The complicity of the applicant is established during the course of investigation. It is pertinent to note that the case of the respondent is that all accused had acted in connivance with each other. The applicant had admitted that the applicant is partner in four firms. Statement of Sachin Gaikwad shows that, he does not own any firm by name M/s. Neha Impex. Jaghish Chauhan had approached him and requested him to meet his friend Mourya, who in turn introduced him to Sameer Sayeed Patel for the purpose of opening bank account with ICICI Bank. He provided blank cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to Sachin Gaikwad he did not obtain any GST registration number. Blank cheques were provided according to Sameer Patel. He had not obtained any registration number. Prima facie there is sufficient evidence against the applicant/accused. It is apparent that the goods worth ₹ 2.47 Crores were allegedly purchased from M/s. Neha Impex and M/s. Rohini Impex. They had in turn purchased the goods from M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders. As per the investigation, M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders is not in existence. The firms and the companies of the applicant which are conducted by him along with his father and brother had according to respondent evaded tax. Sachin Gaikwad has stated that he is not owner or proprietor of M/s. Neha Impex. Statement of Jagdish Chauhan also transpired that he is dummy proprietor of M/s. Rohini Impax. Owners of M/s. Neha Impex and M/s. Rohini Impex have stated that they have not provided any goods to applicant. Payment to Neha Impex & M/s. Rohini Impex - evidence of legal commercial contract or not - HELD THAT:- The submission about payment to M/s. Neha Impex & M/s. Rohini Impex cannot be considered to be evidence of legal commercial contract since they have never conducted any business. They have not sold goods. There is no infirmity or illegality in summons issued by respondents. No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out - Bail application dismissed.