Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 769 - HC - GSTSeeking grant for Anticipatory Bail - Input Tax Credit - Prayer to release the attached bank account - non-existent at the given registered addresses - purchase invoices issued by the non-existent/ bogus suppliers without any actual supply of goods - Violation to Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with section 155 of the Act - burden to Prove - Summon issued - Petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings on various occasions - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner’s firm, is not in existence on the three addresses given as the registered addresses, but even the suppliers, from whom the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the goods, are non-existent at their given address. The petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has been time and again issued various summons adhering to the provisions of law, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, to participate in the investigation and put forth his case. He has failed to participate in the proceedings on various occasions. The fake addresses of the petitioner’s firm as well as suppliers do not make him eligible for any protection from this Court. The conduct of the petitioner is availing ineligible ITC of Rs. 10.38 Crores, amounts to playing fraud on the Public Exchequer. The case of the petitioner would prima facie be covered by Section 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Considering that the Appeal of the petitioner regarding the cancellation of registration is already sub-judice before the appropriate authority, and the allegations made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, prima-facie, do not appear to be correct, therefore, we do not think that the petitioner should be granted any order of protection. After going through the petition along with the annexures, and the reply filed by the respondent No. 2 herein, we do not find that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of any protection. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner, has in fact, availed the ITC, from non-existent entities. The burden of proof on the contrary is on the petitioner, as per Section 155 of CGST Act, 2017 to prove he is eligible for ITC. The petitioner has been granted several opportunities. The petitioner was summoned, to participate in the investigation and submit documents/information regarding the ongoing investigation as provided u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has failed to show to the respondents, the existence of the entities. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that principles of natural justice have not been followed. The petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Gujrat V/s. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer [2023 (7) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT], in order to demonstrate that a person summoned under the CGST Act, 2017, cannot invoke Section 438 of the Cr. P.C., for Anticipatory Bail. The petitioner therefore claims to have approached this Court seeking protection Orders. However, after going through the reply filed by the respondent No. 2 herein, we do not find that the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case for grant of any protection to the petitioner. Thus, we are not inclined to grant protection to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a result, the interim protection stands vacated. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
|