TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponsible for affairs of company and matter is yet to be investigated from him. The huge economic loss to exchequer is caused and this practice appears writ large in business community. Merely on the basis of the fact that department has the power to arrest no apprehension can be inferred at this stage when the department admittedly saying that they have not even thought of arresting the accused. The co accused is still in custody and have not released on bail. The bonafide of the department cannot be doubted at this stage - the present application of anticipatory bail is dismissed - decided against applicant. - Bail Application No. 419/21 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2021 - (AJAY KUMAR JAIN) SPL. JUDGE, NDPS/N. DELHI Present: Sh. Satish A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icers and summons were issued to Director Prateek Jha. On 03.02.2021 another search was conducted at the premises of company and director Prateek Jha was arrested on 03.02.2021 and taken in judicial custody. The allegations in the remand application is that there is mismatch in the returns which led to short fall in the payment of GST to the tune of ₹ 24,96,42,318/. As per the remand application, accused Prateek Jha was alone responsible for taking final decision in the company and not the present accused. The summons were also sent to present accused u/s 70 of CGST Act seeking his personal attendance to tender statement and the documents. The applicant sought exemption on the ground that he had returned from international travel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pre mature is not at all tenable. Ld. Sr counsel submits that as per remand application, co accused Prateek Jha categorically stated that he is only responsible for financial aspect of the company and present accused is not dealing over financial part of the company. Furthermore ₹ 7.7 crores of total liability till date has already been deposited. Ld. Sr counsel submits that till date there is no determination or assessment therefore no coercive measures could be taken against accused (relied upon Makemytrip (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India, 2016 (73) taxmann.com 31 (Delhi) = 2016 (9) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT which is affirmed by Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Make My Trip (India) Pvt Ltd, 2019 (104) taxmann.com 245 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however there is no occasion for said belief as department only issued summons to seek the information and not thought of arresting the accused. Ld. Sr SPP submits that there could not be any order of protection of arrest in this case because there is no apprehension and interim protection is also against law (relied upon Union of India Vs V Padam Narayan, Crl Appeal No. 1575/2008 = 2008 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 = 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT , Adri Dharan Das Vs State of West Bengal, 2005 (4) SCC 303 = 2005 (2) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT ). Ld. SPP submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India Anr Vs Ravi Nayar, Crl Appeal No. 815/2017 dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DHC) = 2020 (8) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT , Vijay Verma Vs State dated 11.03.2015 (DHC) = 2015 (3) TMI 1181 - DELHI HIGH COURT , Monu Kapoor Vs DRI, Bail Application No. 2381/2019 dated 11.12.2019) = 2019 (12) TMI 484 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Heard. In present case, the allegations against the accused company is that they had collected the CGST from the clients of the company to the tune of ₹ 24.96 crores and not deposited the same with the government, thus committed offence u/s 132 CGST Act which is non bailable offence. Merely depositing of ₹ 7.7 crores do not in any manner drop the offence in bailable category. As far as the allegations against the present accused is concerned, he is director of company who is also res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
