Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + DSC GST - 2023 (6) TMI DSC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1048 - PATIALA HOUSE COURTSSeeking grant of pre-arrest bail - fraudulently encashing the undue input tax credit by showing exports of goods exported - territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present applicant seeking pre-arrest bail. Maintainability of present application - admittedly proceedings of CGST have been initiated at Bhopal Commissionerate there and not in Delhi - HELD THAT:- Applicant has moved the present application on the ground that he being permanent resident of Delhi having no concern with the firm in question apprehends his possible arrest, therefore approached the court at Delhi. Having gone through the judgment in Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma’s case [1990 (9) TMI 363 - DELHI HIGH COURT], without commenting much into the details of facts of that case, it would be rather important to note that in para 14 to 18 Hon’ble High Court referred to different judgments of High Courts laying down legal proposition that an application u/s 438 Cr.PC can be filed before the court of Session/High Court of that territorial jurisdiction where applicant resides and apprehends his arrest on accusation of having been committed beyond jurisdiction. In the absence of any specific bar either u/s 438 Cr.PC or in any manner, a court can entertain any application for pre-arrest bail at the instance of an applicant who resides within territorial jurisdiction of that court and apprehends his arrest at another jurisdiction, where he intends to approach in accordance with law - this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application. Merits of the case - fraudulently encashing the undue input tax credit by showing exports of goods exported - HELD THAT:- Sr. Standing counsel on the other hand submits that even if the refund had not been withheld by custom authorities, there is no provision which prohibits the CGST from inquiring and claiming the refund when there is sufficient material in the investigation of the Department show that the input tax credit has been availed without actual supply of material. Ld. Sr. Standing counsel specifically referred to section 74 and 132(1)(e) of the Act. Considering the totality of the circumstance, this court need not to go into much details of material which is otherwise under investigation of CGST Bhopal, merits of the matter can obviously be examined by courts of local jurisdiction. However two aspects which certainly weigh this court to give protection to the accused - there was no tangible reason furnished in the application of his apprehension of being arrested. As such he submits that very application is without basis. However receiving of summons by the applicant from the Department, more particularly when his father has already arrested and the fact that applicant has no concern with the firm is admitted. - When the very initiation of action by the Department may not be in accordance with Rule 96 of the Act, though there is no denial to the fact that Department can still initiate the action in terms of section 74 of the Act as rightly pointed out by ld. Sr. Standing counsel but the fact that the applicant being not at all concerned with the said firm. - Therefore for the above said two reasons accused/ applicant is protected from possible arrest, subject to he joins the investigation with CGST Bhopal Commissionerate as well as of any succeeding dates for which he would be called upon. Application disposed off.
|