9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e attention of this Court to Annexure P-2 (Colly), which are the copies of the Form No. DIR 11, DIR 12 and certain other relevant documents. It was also submitted that the company was allotted GST No. 06AAHCM4191J1Z8 on 17.11.2017 and which was got cancelled on 01.10.2018 i.e. after the resignation of the petitioner from the Company. Still further, while referring to the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was totally incorrect and false that the Company had claimed Input Tax Credit (in short 'ITC') of Rs. 5,49,68,735/-, which was contrary to the material and other records as the Company had claimed 'NIL' transactions for the financial year 2017-18. In support of this, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Annexure P-4 (Colly). It was thus urged that respondent No.2 - Excise Taxation Officer, Ward No.8, Gurugram (East), without as much as carrying out the necessary verifications went ahead and made a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the petitioner was not associated with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Companies Act, 1956). This Company was granted Registration Certificate No.06AAHCM4191J1Z8 in form GST REG-06 with liability to pay GST w.e.f. 17.11.2017. The petitioner, who functioned as the Managing Director of the Company, did business during the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Learned State counsel has further submitted that as per the online returns submitted on GST portal, the Company admittedly did not affect any purchase or sale during 2017-18. However, the returns submitted by the Company for the financial year 2018-19 showed purchases, sale and claims of huge ITC. Learned State counsel while further controverting the submissions of the petitioner that he had ceased to be a Director of the Company and hence had no role to play in the affairs of the said Company, submitted that the petitioner's name continues to be on the GST portal even as on date. Learned State counsel in support of her submissions referred to Annexure R-5, which was a print out of the GST portal, wherein, the name of the petitioner duly finds mention on 19.07.2019 i.e. the date of the registration of the FIR in question. Learned State counsel has further submitted that had his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the petitioner, that no show cause notice was served to the Firm by respondent No.2, it was submitted by the learned State counsel that since the status of the firm was non-existent, it could not have been possible to either issue or serve show cause notice to the firm. It was in this background, the Department was left with no other option but to move a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR against the petitioner since his name continued to exist on the GST portal on the date of registration of FIR on 19.07.2019. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Since the inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extremely wide and undefined, a great deal of circumspection needs to be exercised. In the case in hand, as also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, investigation is still underway and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not yet been presented by the investigating agency. Therefore, this Court would not be justified in embarking upon the truthfulness or falsehood of the allegations levelled in the complaint. Moreover, a perusal of the FIR in question does prima facie disclose the commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion which he is required to supply under this Act or the rules made thereunder or (unless with a reasonable belief, the burden of proving which shall be upon him, that the information supplied by him is true) supplies false information; or (l) attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any of the offences mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) of this section, shall be punishable-- (i) in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine; (ii) in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds two hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine; (iii) in the case of any other offence where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds one hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed two hundred lakh rupees, with impris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
