TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that the order cancelling the petitioner’s bail does not proceed on the basis of the quantum of tax evasion involved but on the basis that the petitioner has attempted to intimidate witnesses whom he had made dummy directors/proprietors in certain companies/firms - this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in order dated 22.12.2018 made by the Sessions Court cancelling the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegations on the basis of which bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the Sessions Court by order dated 22.12.2018. The counter affidavit is taken on record. 2. I have heard counsel for both parties at length. 3. The principal contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are as follows: (i) that after his arrest on 01.08.2018, the petitioner was admitted to bail. The first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of tax evasion involved is not ₹ 4.58 crores but ₹ 85 crores, which is false and baseless. In support of this the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the first bail cancellation application filed by the respondent where in para 5 the numbers 8 and 5 have been inserted in handwriting, which according to the petitioner is an attempt by the respondent to mislead the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the names of the firms/companies mentioned by the said Deepak Taneja nowhere appear in the list of companies/firms through which the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in tax evasion/ wrongful availment or passing of input tax credit. Such statements, which are part of the record of the investigation which is still underway, have also been shown to the Court. 5. Upon a closer lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in order dated 22.12.2018 made by the Sessions Court cancelling the petitioner s bail; and that, the petitioner having misused and abused the liberty granted to him, is not entitled to the benefit of bail, at this stage. 8. Both applications are accordingly dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 9. It is clarified that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
