TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the respondents under Section 70 of HGST/CGST Act, 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in CRM-M-30676- 2021, petitioner No.1 Hema Garg is registered proprietor of the firm Shree Shyam Traders, having principal place of business at Dharam Colony, Sector-5, Palam Vihar Road, Gurugram, whereas petitioner No.2 Vijay Garg is authorized person of the said firm, who was dealing in wholesale dealing of iron and steel products having GSTIN No.06AKQPA4209F1ZH, vide registration certificate dated 28.07.2018 and they have another firm by the same name bearing GSTIN No.06AEQPG6869P1ZH, vide registration certificate dated 23.01.2019. In CRM-M-31591-2021, petitioner Arpit Garg is registered proprietor of the firm Stasya Enterprises,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., were found to be non- existent and verification of some of the firms was pending. It is next submitted that the respondents have formed an opinion, after recording statements of the vehicle owners, that they have never transported the inward supplies from the firms of Delhi to firms of the petitioners, therefore, bogus documents are prepared by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next argued that during pendency of the anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents have filed the reply and in paras No.2 to 9 of the reply, it is stated as under: - "2) That during the analysis of inward supplies (purchases) of the firms mentioned in the table below, it was observed that these taxpayers had av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the suspicious firms of UT of Delhi to the applicant's firms in their E-way bills. 4) That the above said firms namely M/s Stasya Enterprises GSTIN-06BDLPG3178G2ZH was inspected and searched along with M/s Shree Shyam Traders GSTIN-06AEQPG6869P1ZH and M/s Shree Shyam Traders GSTIN-06AKQPA4209F1ZH, (mentioned at Sr. No.2 & 3 respectively of the table above), under Section 67 of HGST/CGST Act, 2017, after obtaining due permission from Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Gurugram (Range) vide order No.6040-6045 dated 23.06.2021. 5) That at the time of inspection and search, a person named Sh. Rajesh Kumar was found present at the business premises and he claimed to be an employee for M/s Stasya Enterprises GSTIN- 06BDLPG3178G2ZH, M/s Shree ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the concerned jurisdictional authorities and in all such cases the firms have been reported non-existent. Whereas the verification reports regarding the remaining firms are pending. 9) That based on the statements of the vehicle owners, reports received from the jurisdictional authority of UT of Delhi and analysis of data available on the common GST portal, intimations of demand in form GST DRC-01A have been issued to the firms mentioned in the table below and the firms have been advised to pay the amount of tax along with applicable tax and penalty mentioned in the table below: Sr. No. Trade Name Prop./ Parnter GSTIN GST-DRC-01A No. with date Total amount ascertained 1. Stasya Enterprises Arpit Garg 06BDLPG3178 G2ZH 55/P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....good, which was the inward supply from the suspicious tax payer, was found at the premises. It is also submitted that once the evidence was collected by the respondents-Department that the petitioners have prepared fake documents, showing inward supplies of goods for the purpose of evasion of tax of more than Rs. 36.00 crores, notice was served upon them. It is next submitted that instead of appearing before the authorities or giving reply to the show cause notice, the petitioners have filed the petitions praying for anticipatory bail just to delay the proceedings. Learned State counsel has relied upon a judgment dated 28.01.2021 passed in CRM-M-1511-2021 (Rakesh Arora Vs. State of Punjab), wherein, regular bail application of the accused ....