TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istence. Further, prima facie record reveals, that the firms and companies of the applicant which are run by him along with his father and brother has evaded tax to the tune of ₹ 12.5 crores. Moreover, as reflected by statement of Sachin Gaiwkad he is not owner/proprietor of M/s Neha Impex. Further statement of Jagdish Bhikaji Chouhan, it is transpired that he is dummy proprietor of M/s. Rohini Impex. Considering the huge amount of tax evasion which has caused loss to the public exchequer, thorough investigation is required. Apart from this present applicant cannot pray for parity, while considering his prearrest bail on the ground that his father and brother are granted regular bail by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nadmissible 'Input Tax Credit' and to avail the export benefits. The father and brother of the applicant were summoned and interrogated on 26th and 27th of November, 2020. They were arrested for the offence u/s. 132(1)(b, 132(1)(c) and Sec. 132(1)(e)(e) of CGST Act, 2017 and presented before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 27th November 2020 in Remand Application No.192/2020. As the applicant has received aforesaid summons, he is apprehending arrest and has preferred this anticipatory bail application. 3. The present applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application on the ground that he is partner in only four firms namely M/s. Alliance Corporation, M/s. Tex Fab India, M/s. Fab India Exports and M/s. Nagaria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Neha Impex, M/s. Rohini Impex bear the GST number. It is not the case of respondent that those GST registration are fake or bogus. Apart from this while exporting goods the firms adhered to the Customs Act. The applicant is person of reputation. The allegations levelled against him are completely false and baseless. Hence, it is prayed that he be granted anticipatory bail in connection with Summons No. CBIC-DIN-20201267VR000000DFES dated 2nd December 2020 issued by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax U/sec. 70 of with CGST Act. 4. The CGST Department who is the respondent herein has filed reply vide Exh.2 and additional reply vide Exh.3. According to respondent applicant, in connivance with his father and brother floa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary 2021 but he has not co-operated in the investigation and has submitted that business is run by his father and he is not aware about transaction. According to respondent copies of statement of applicant, his father and brother which were recorded by the respondent are annexed with reply which would clearly show that they have not co-operated in the investigation. The applicants have caused loss of ₹ 12.5 crores to the Government Exchequer. Hence, it is prayed that anticipatory bail application of applicant be rejected. 6. Heard learned advocate for applicant at lenght. He has reiterated the contents of anticipatory bail application. In addition, he has vehemently submitted that only because the applicant has stated before respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Jagdish Bhikaji Chouhan more particularly the following question and answer which is reproduced:- Q2. What is the connection with M/s. Rohini Impex? Ans. During the lockdown period, when I was having no work, one of my friends Shree Mahesh Joshi introduced me to Shree Sameer Patel as business men. Shree Sameer Patel offered me a job of collecting documents for the purpose of opening Current account and rent agreements. I accepted offer and started job for ₹ 15000/- per month salary. Subsequently, Shree Sameer Patel informed that he wish to open a firm named M/s. Rohini Impex in my name. I allowed him to open a firm named M/s. Rohini Impex in my name for ₹ 15000/- M/s. Rohini Impex has account no.041805500616 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal proceedings and that the Commissioner or the appropriate officer under the Revenue Laws are not police officers and that at the stage of issue of notices under Section 70 of the CGST Act, the Court cannot interfere. Hence, it is prayed that anticipatory bail application be rejected. In support of his contention, he has relied upon following case laws. 1. Harshad S. Mehta V/s. Union of India And Another on 29th July, 1992 equivalent citations: (1992) 94 BOMLR 789, 1992 Cri LJ 4032 2. Order dated 4th December 2020 passed by HHJ D.E. Kothalikar (C.R.No.25) in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1456/2020 (Essa Ismail Merchant V/s. Union of India) 3. P. Chidambaram V/s. Directorate of Enforcement by the Supreme Court of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
