9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. It is alleged that the preliminary investigations have revealed that M/s Milkfood Ltd. has availed fake ITC of Rs. 54.86 crores from M/s Maya Impex, M/s Aditya Sales, M/s Shiv Muskaan Traders and M/s Shri Nidhivan Foods which were being operated by one Sh. Ashish Aggarwal. 3. It is further alleged that M/s Milkfood Limited has also availed ITC of Rs. 30.54 Crores from M/s Devyaani Agro Industries. It is further alleged that M/s Milkfood Limited has availed a total amount of Rs. 85.4 crores of inadmissible fake ITC resulting into huge losses to the public exchequer. It is alleged that Ashish Aggarwal is the master mind and beneficiary of the chain of fake firms involved in GST evasion of Rs. 137.5 crores approx. He was arrested under the provisions of Sections 69(1) of the CGST Act on 29.10.2020 and Sanjay Kumar Garg, proprietor of M/s Devyaani Agro Industries involved in GST evasion of more than Rs. 30 Crores approximately was arrested on 12.11.2020. Vide order dated 14.11.2020 Ashish Aggarwal was granted bail by the Ld. CMM and the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the A.S.J. Patiala House Courts. 4. It is averred in the petition that subsequent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents have joined the investigation pursuant to the summons issued by the department. It is further submitted that Ashish Aggarwal who has been stated to be the master mind and beneficiary was granted regular bail vide order dated 14.11.2020, whereby the then Ld. C.M.M. has noted that despite 14 days of custody no custodial interrogation has been undertaken by the department which demonstrated that no custodial interrogation was required and that arrest was made prior to issuance of show cause notice/ adjudication of alleged evasion. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also moved a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Aggarwal but vide order dated 16.03.2021 the same was dismissed. It is further submitted that apprehending coercive action, the respondents moved anticipatory bail application which was granted vide order dated 24.11.2020 on the following grounds: "4.1 Admittedly the alleged amount is yet to be Adjudicated; 4.2 M/s Milk Food Ltd is a 40 Years Old Company having clean antecedents; 4.3 Applicants (Respondents herein) are not Habitual Offenders; 4.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Pradeep Petitioner(s) Vs. The Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther a sum of Rs. 6.27 Crores was further deposited in order to demonstrate the bonafidies pertaining pending investigation and till date a total amount of Rs. 16.27 Crores has been deposited which is almost 20% of the alleged evasion. It is further submitted that this figure is other than the GST of Rs. 20.59 Crores paid by M/s Milkfood Ltd from the date of commencement of GST, which is not in dispute. It is further submitted that despite deposit of Rs. 16.27 Crores, the present cancellation petition has been moved after two months of the passing of the impugned order dated 24.11.2020. 9. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records of this case. 10. Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. A.S.J. without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order the court below has mainly relied upon the interim order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Pradeep Vs. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Salem wherein the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the alleged liability consequent upon w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry much likely to tamper with the evidence/influence witnesses. However, there are no allegations against the respondents that they ever tried to tamper with the evidence or any of the witnesses of the case had complained about the respondents influencing them in any manner whatsoever. It is further argued that the cancellation can only be done in cases of supervening circumstances which are totally lacking in the present case. The counsel for the respondents relied upon State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sanjay Gandhi 1978 (2) SCC 411. 15. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Sr. Standing counsel for the petitioner in regard to the cancellation of bail are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra) held that the cancellation of bail can only be granted if there is violation of any condition imposed in the bail order or if the order is illegal or perverse or non consideration of relevant factors. It is further urged that this matter was in relation to the offence committed under sections of IPC, NDPS and Arms Act whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial." 20. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 has also laid down guidelines to Courts while deciding the question of cancellation of bail already granted. Para 4 of judgment reads as follows: "4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
