|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1434 Records
-
2021 (8) TMI 1194
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Status of the entity - appellants are the partnership firms - HELD THAT:- The penal provisions are applicable only in case of natural person and not for the artificial person namely the incorporated company or a partnership firm. Admittedly, in this case the appellants are the partnership firms. Since, they are not the natural persons, the provisions of Rule 26 cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty on them.
This Tribunal in the case of WOODMEN INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA [2003 (9) TMI 228 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] has dealt with the identical set of facts in context with imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid on the partnership firm and has held that penalty cannot be imposed on the firm and only the individual person is exposed to the penal consequences provided therein.
The imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid on the appellants is upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1193
Bogus Purchases - as per AO accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of accounts, the payments have been made by account payee cheque which are duly reflected in the bank statement of the appellant. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has received cash back from the suppliers - AO has not disputed the sales of the concluded that there is no basis to disbelieve the purchases made by the appellant from the alleged parties which could, have caused any leakage to the revenue necessitating estimated disallowance claim of the appellant, cannot be denied. The AO is directed to delete the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1192
Commission charged towards accommodation entries provided - CIT(A) restricting the quantum of commission at the rate of 0.6% based on the average of the past four years profits - HELD THAT:- Estimation as made by CIT(A) was in accordance with average profits shown in earlier 4 years. Even if the transactions were sham transactions, the estimation, in our considered opinion, was to be on some rational basis. The basis as adopted by Ld. CIT(A) was more rational and plausible one. Therefore, no fault could be found in the said estimation.
Estimation of income on contract receipts and commission income - CIT(A) has merely gone by the fact that the aforesaid receipts would be business income of the assessee keeping in view assessee’s main objects - he has overlooked the fact that no estimation of income was made by Ld. AO against these transactions and the estimation was only with respect to sale & purchase transactions. These items, as noted by Ld. AO, were separately credited to Profit & Loss Account and hence, constitute separate stream of income for the assessee - a separate estimated income against these two items would certainly be required. We make the estimation @8% for both these streams of income.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1191
Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - computation of income added back the provision for substandard asset for the purpose of sec 115JB - HELD THAT:- There is no case that the profit and loss account prepared is not as per law - provision for standard asset is duly reflected in the profit and loss account. It cannot be said that it was not a mistake of the assessee not to add back the same under section 115JB. Once having disclosed the provision for substandard asset which is a normal feature in the preparation of profit and loss account, it will certainly be a mistake not to add the same under the 115JB computation of income.
CIT(A) has completely erred in observing that the provision for substandard asset was not disclosed in any of the enclosures of computation of income. CIT(A) has misled himself. Assessee’s claim that it was a genuine mistake and the assessee has suo moto revised the same during the assessment proceedings is cogent. The authorities below have not been able to cogently rebut the submission of the assessee - set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty - Appeal by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1190
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - whether only activity of the assessee which is exempt from tax is the agriculture activity and that during the year assessee had incurred loss from agricultural activity which was duly disallowed by the assessee in the return of income - HELD THAT:- Entire expenses attributable to the agricultural division had already been subject matter of voluntary disallowance by the assessee - Other expenses incurred are only expenses attributable to the regular business of the assessee and it could be safely concluded that the same cannot be construed to have incurred for the purpose of earning any exempt income - assessee had vehemently pleaded before the lower authorities that interest paid on loans are used only for the purpose of non-agri division activities of the assessee which does not require any apportionment towards the agri- division.
This fact has not been controverted by cogent evidences by the lower authorities - there cannot be any disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules - disallowance made under first and third limb of rules, the same gets subsumed in the disallowance of loss incurred from agricultural division which had already been made by the assessee in the return of income. Accordingly, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses separately u/s.14A of the Act in the peculiar facts of the instant case. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1189
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - objections in reassessment proceedings - whether violation of procedures since the reopening of the assessment proved ? - reasons for reopening that assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the material fact and that they had not commenced its business during the year and mere production of the account books or other evidence before the AO will not necessarily amount to disclosure -whether the notice sent by the 1st appellant for reopening of the assessment in respect of returns submitted by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10, is right or wrong? - HELD THAT:- The appellants issued notice u/s.148 of the Act and on the request by the respondent herein/assesee seeking reason for reopening, reasons recorded was provided to assessee. Again the assessee raised objections and after considering the objections, 2nd appellant passed the order dated 25.10.2016 disposing the objections. So the answer is, each case shall be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of the judicial review while entertaining such matters. When a notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued to the assessee for reopening the assessment, it shows it involved complex facts and circumstances and the same are to be adjudicated by producing documents and by adducing evidence by the assessee.
Power exercised by the assessing officer to reopen the assessment - In this case, the appellants clearly stated that there is escapement of assessment and also stated the reason by its letter dated 04.05.2016, pointing out that the assessee company has not commenced its business during the year, therefore, the expense claimed needs to be capitalised. During the year, the assessee company has received other income and the same has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. The material fact has not been disclosed fully and truly during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, there are definite reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment.
Maintainability of writ - alternative statutory remedy - When there is hierarchy of appeals provided under the statute, the assessee must exhaust the statutory remedies. When there is an alternative statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked. There is no bar to entertain the writ petition when alternative remedy is available if it is the case that the order passed by the concerned authority is prejudicially affecting their rights or interest.
In the present case on hand, the appellants clearly stated the reason for reopening that particular fact has not been disclosed fully and truly in the assessment proceedings and so whether the assessee had disclosed it or not, can be decided by the authorities concerned. The respondent has got every right to make its submission during the enquiry under the reassessment proceedings and can furnish the required documents in support of its stand and if the statutory authority, not considered all the grounds, the assessee has right of appeal under the statutory provisions. Therefore, these questions cannot be decided in the writ proceedings - correctness of the reasons set out by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, and the rejection of objections raised by the respondent by order by the 2nd appellant, can be decided during the re-assessment proceedings and not in the writ.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1188
Power of DRP to enhance the assessment u/s 144C - Assessment order u/s 144C(5) to make disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) in respect of Employees Secondment Charges and Reimbursement of Expenses - variations not identifiable in the Draft Assessment Order - HELD THAT:- As the present case is concerned, sub-section (8) is more relevant as the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Dispute Resolution Panel has no power to enhance based on the variations which were not identifiable in the Draft Assessment Order.
The explanation clarifies that the Dispute Resolution Panel have the power to consider any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the Draft Order. Thus, the requirement is that the variations proposed for enhancement must be relatable to the Draft Assessment Order and such issues must be arising out of the assessment proceedings. The very purpose and object of explanation is to ensure that in the event of any non-consideration of a particular point in the Draft Assessment Order by the Assessment Officer, the Dispute Resolution Panel being a Specialised Panel is provided with the power to propose such variations, relating to any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the power of enhancement contemplated under subsection (8) is clarified through the explanation. Such a clarification cannot be construed as 'excessive power' as in the absence of such clarification by way of an explanation, the very purpose and object of sub-section (8) to Section 144C would be diluted.
Explanation contemplates that any variation arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the Draft Assessment Order shall be proposed and on such proposal, an opportunity is to be provided to the eligible assessee to defend their case. Thus, the requirement as contemplated is that the Dispute Resolution Panel is to provide pre-decisional hearing to the assessee in order to comply with the principles of natural justice. Once a Dispute Resolution Panel identified and picked up such variations arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the Draft Assessment Order, then such variations are to be communicated to the Assessee, enabling them to file their objections on such variations. On receipt of objections, the same is to be disposed of meaningfully.
There is a clear nexus between sub-section (8) and the Explanations provided to the sub-section. Explanation fulfils the purpose and object sought to be achieved under the said provision. In the absence of the explanation, there is a possibility of misinterpretation by either of the parties and therefore, the explanation became necessary as far as the subsection (8) is concerned and thus, the contention raised by the petitioner that the Explanation exceeds the provision is incorrect and thus, rejected.
The Dispute Resolution Panel being an Expert Panel, is bound to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer. In the event of identifying omission or commission or excessive exercise, the Dispute Resolution Panel is empowered under sub-section (8) to confirm or reduce or enhance the variations. - there is no impediment as such for the Dispute Resolution Panel to consider any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the Draft Assessment Order and no matter, such an issue was discussed in the Draft Assessment Order or not, but it should not be totally unconnected with the assessment proceedings or the Draft Assessment Order. This being the purposive interpretation to be adopted for the purpose of defining Section 144C and sub-section (8) as well as the Explanation, this Court is of the considered opinion that proposed notice issued to the writ petitioner is relatable to the assessment proceedings and to the Draft Assessment Order. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of exercise of powers by the Dispute Resolution Panel and the notice issued for enhancement. The petitioner submitted its objections and such objections were also disposed of and finally, the assessment order was admittedly passed by the Assessing Officer on 05.10.2017.
The relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition stands rejected - The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the final Assessment Order passed by the competent authority on 05.10.2017 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in a prescribed manner and by complying with the provisions of the Act and Rules;
-
2021 (8) TMI 1187
Characterization of income - trading receipts - undistributed amount received by the assessee in the year 1999 towards the terminal benefits of the employees - ITAT concluded not to be treated as trading receipt during the year in appeal - HELD THAT:- Tribunal took note of the factual position, which was placed before it to establish that the remaining amount of ₹ 7.29 Crores, which was left in the hands of the assessee, was used to be adjusted against the students concession subsidy due to the assessee from the Government of Tamil Nadu in the subsequent years. The assessee was able to establish the said fact by producing a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 24.03.2009. Taking note of the said Government Order, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal.
Government Order dated 24.03.2009 was not placed before the CIT(A), when it heard the appeal and passed the order dated 20.12.2011, but there can be no denying the fact that such an order was passed. The genuinity of the stand taken by the assessee was never in doubt before the Tribunal. No substantial question of law.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1186
Disallowance of CSR expenses - allowable revenue expenditure or not? - Assessee argued that expediture incurred under the directions of BPE Govt. of India requiring Companies to spend a prescribed percentage of its profits on CSR and now also made mandatory under the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (11) TMI 1717 - ITAT DELHI] and [2018 (4) TMI 1664 - ITAT DELHI] issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee - thus direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee’s claim for expenditure on account of Corporate Social Responsibility. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Allowable business expenditure - expenses on tree plantation etc u/s 37 - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case expenses incurred as wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Thus, the expenses incurred in the year under consideration are also eligible for deduction under section 37 of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1185
Eligibility of exemption u/s 10B - Export of IT services from STP - AO observed that, assessee could not provide details of input software purchased for rendering IT enabled services as well as output software for IT enabled services rendered by the assessee. He also emphasized that the assessee could not submit any evidence regarding job work done from third parties. - CIT-A deleted the addition.
HELD THAT:- CIT(A) dealt with all the objections of the Assessing Officer of old service agreement, evidence in support of input software as well as output software, No. of employees, quantum of plant and machinery, difference in export figures reported in the return of income and softtex forms. The Learned DR could not rebut any of the factual finding of Ld. CIT(A).
Assessee has been allowed deduction under section 10B of the Act on the same activity for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09. Even in assessment year subsequent to the present assessment year i.e. AY 2010-11 also, the assessee has been allowed the deduction under section 10B - No justified reason for not allowing the deduction only in the year under consideration by the Assessing Officer. In our opinion, there is no infirmity or error in the order of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute of deduction under section 10B - Decided against revenue.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1184
Addition u/s 43CA - Additions made without reference made to valuation officer (DVO) u/s 50C(2) / 50A - difference between the sale value recorded in books and stamp duty value - whether the A.O ought to have acceded to the request of the assessee to refer the dispute in respect of valuation of five (5) flats to the DVO in order to ascertain the fair market value of the property on the date of sale - assessee pleaded before the A.O that invoking blindly the provisions u/s 43CA and making additions based on the deeming provision would cause hardship to the assessee in genuine transfer of flats - HELD THAT:- As relying on SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL [2014 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the AO with a direction to refer the valuation of flats to DVO for determination of the fair market value as on the date of sale of the property after giving opportunity to the assessee and thereafter to adopt the consideration of five (5) flats in question in accordance to law.
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - whether deduction be allowed on the entire income including any income (if any) determined u/s 43CA - HELD THAT:- We find force in the submission of the Ld. AR that if the income/profits from the sale of flats, in question, falls in the eligibility project for claiming deduction 80IB(10) of the Act, then even if there is any enhancement in the income of the assessee by virtue of valuation made by the DVO, then the A.O after examination of this fact should give the benefit of the deduction under Chapter VI-A on the enhanced amount if any, in accordance to law.
Taking into consideration the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Radhika Sales Corporation [2018 (11) TMI 1788 - ITAT PUNE] we are of the opinion that the proviso explaining the tolerance limit has to be read retrospectively, therefore, if the difference between the declared value by the assessee and the value decided by the DVO is less than 10%, no addition is warranted. With the aforesaid observations, the issue raised by the assessee is disposed off and the A.O is directed to assess the income of the assessee as per the directions given.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1183
Retraction of surrender of LTCG - Transaction were accepted as bogus but later claimed as Genuine - CIT-A did not admit the additional ground of appeal - claiming the Long Term Capital Gains earned as exempt - surrender made by the assessee of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain by way of filing a revised return revoked by SEBI order - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the additional grounds raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) were wrongly refused to be admitted by him.
The assessee has suitably demonstrated before us the reason for revoking the surrender originally made before the AO of Long Term Capital Gain as being on account of the scrip transacted in by the assessee having subsequently been found to be genuine by the order of the SEBI. The surrender no doubt was made on account of certain evidences collected during survey at the assessee’s premises to the effect that the claim of Long Term Capital Gains on the sales as exempt was bogus.
Subsequent event of the SEBI order holding the transaction in the said scrip to be genuine was sufficient enough for the assessee to raise a legitimate ground before the Ld. CIT(A) for claiming the Long Term Capital Gains earned as exempt. As rightly pointed out by the assessee it is settled law that the assessee is entitled to make a claim before the worthy CIT(A), for the first time. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India [1990 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] settles the said issue in favour of the assessee.
CIT(A) directed to admit the additional ground raised by the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the same in accordance with law
-
2021 (8) TMI 1182
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- Bare perusal of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) in order to initiate the penalty proceedings against the assessee goes to prove that the AO himself was not aware / sure as to whether he is issuing notice to initiate the penalty proceedings either for “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income” by the assessee rather issued vague and ambiguous notice by incorporating both the limbs of section 271(1)(c). When the charge is to be framed against any person so as to move the penal provisions against him/her, he/she is required to be specifically made aware of the charges to be leveled against him/her.
Following the decisions rendered in the cases of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerala Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] and Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that when the notice issued by the AO is bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1181
Disallowance u/s 80IA - reasoning of the Assessing Officer to make the disallowance was that the assessee had incurred expenditure like managerial remuneration, audit fee, staff welfare expenses, legal and professional expenses, etc. and the same have to be apportioned between 80IA units and non 80IA units - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2020 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT BANGALORE] we direct the CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh. It is ordered accordingly.
Addition of total income interest received on refund u/s 244A - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Income Tax Department had issued interest u/s 244A on Income-tax refund for assessment year 2012-2013 amounting to ₹ 1,53,504 on 08,07.2013. Since the assessee had received a sum of ₹ 1,53,504 during the relevant assessment year, the same has to be brought to tax as income from other sources, in view of the judicial pronouncements cited by the Assessing Officer at para 8.1 of the impugned assessment order. Therefore, the ground relating to interest income received on refund u/s 244A of the I.T.Act whether it can be taxed in the relevant assessment year, is rejected.
Allowable expenditure of interest u/s 201(1A) - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industry v. CIT [1998 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] had held that interest for late payment of direct taxes is not a deductible expenditure. In view of the clear dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the interest expenditure paid u/s 201(1A) of the I.T.Act cannot be allowed as a deduction.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1180
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - detention of conveyance and goods - section 129 and 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Though the learned Advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the order is passed by the respondent on presumptions and surmises, and merely relying on the statement of the driver, the said submission cannot be accepted. It transpires from the documents on record that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show cause notice, but the same was not responded to by the petitioner. Now, since a final order has been passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act, the proper course would be to file an Appeal as provided for under the Statute.
As there is an alternative equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1179
Seeking release of detained machinery - Expired E-Way bill - machines used in the business of dealing - detention on the ground that the excavator had no registration in the State of Tripura which was violative of Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act - HELD THAT:- The department does not dispute that the petitioner has collected the necessary GST on the sale of machinery as indicated in the sale invoice. There is no allegation of such tax not being deposited with the Government revenue. The department is not in a position to dispute that the vehicle did arrive at Churaibari check post carrying proper e-way bill and within the validity period of the e-way bill. The validity expired on account of unforeseen and unexpected delay in crossing the check post since the transport department stopped the movement of the vehicle on the ground that the machinery was not registered in the State of Tripura. This issue was cleared when the transport department imposed a fine of ₹ 10,000/- which the petitioner paid. This process, however, took more than 24 hours and in the meantime, the validity of the e-way bill expired. Though the petitioner generated a new e-way bill, the GST department of the State was not prepared to accept it.
Allowing the department to detain the machinery would be wholly impermissible. The fault of the petitioner if at all is rather technical. The machinery costs nearly half a crore of rupees on which the Government revenue has already earned substantial tax. Detaining such machinery at the check post would expose it to deterioration particularly in the present season of heavy rainfall - the tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax.
The respondents shall release the transport vehicle and the machinery in question forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents shall communicate this order telephonically to the respondents to enable this release - petition allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1178
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Violation of principles of natural justice - enhancement of the petitioner's taxable turnover for assessment - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that the processes through which a decision is taken by the Competent Authority in consonance with the provisions of the Act, but not the decision itself. This being the principles to be adopted while entertaining a writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the factual disputes now raised, including the legal grounds are to be adjudicated before the Tribunal in these writ petitions.
The consistency and uniformity in exercising the appeal remedy before approaching the High Court is to be developed both in the interest of the aggrieved person as well as in the interest of the institutions. Institutional respects are also to be protected by the High Court. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that mere pendency cannot be a ground for preferring an appeal and the High Court in such circumstances may take a lenient view by condoning the delay in preferring an appeal, if any arises. This being the principles to be considered, this Court is of an opinion that the petitioner has to approach the Tribunal in order to adjudicate the disputed facts as well as the legal grounds raised in these writ petitions.
The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Jurisdictional Appellate Authority in the prescribed format and by complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1177
Smuggling - recovery of contraband - recording of statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - legally admissible evidence present or not - as per petitioner when the matter was listed for framing of charge before the learned Trial Court both the petitioner and the co-accused Erbil Han had difficulty in understanding English language which shows that the statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act were not voluntary - HELD THAT:- In the present case there is substantive evidence against the petitioner dehors the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act in the form of CCTV footages and the photos in the mobile phone of the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in trafficking of commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 50 kgs 800 gms and it cannot be said that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the alleged offence, at this stage this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1176
Attachment of property - proceeds of crime - first right or claim over the properties - HELD THAT:- The finding recorded is that the attached properties are not proceeds of crime. Mr. Vyas, the learned ASG is prima facie right in his submission that this particular finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal would put an end to the criminal complaint filed by the appellant under the PMLA.
It can be suggested that the Bank and the appellant may jointly put the properties to auction and try to fetch a good price. If successful in this exercise, then the amount shall neither go to the Bank nor shall go to the appellant, but we may ask them to deposit the entire amount with the Registry of this Court or we may ask them to open an Escrow Bank Account and deposit the same. We shall decide above the precedence once the auction is successful.
Post this matter on 06.09.2021.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1175
Seeking grant of bail - generation of invoices without actual supply of goods - offence u/s 132(5) of Central Goods and Service Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This complaint alleged a huge economic offence and therefore, a thorough and detail investigation is essential. Further, considering the materials so far collected by the Investigating Agency in respect of manipulation of invoices, etc and the role of this petitioner in facilitating commission of the offence of huge tax evasion of ₹ 28,97,85,917/-, the enlargement of the petitioner on bail, at this stage, is likely to hamper the investigation and tamper evidence which may amount to compromising with the entire investigation of the case.
This Court has also taken note of the fact that the investigation of the case, involves a huge number of documents to be examined at different levels and at different places necessitating reasonably sufficient time to the Investigating Agency - the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
............
|
9911796707
