9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife admitted irregular transactions having taken place by issuing sale bills without actual supply of the goods and in the process, tax credit was claimed without actual receipt of goods and tax liability was admitted and paid without physically supplying any goods and claimed tax credit and admitted tax liability on fictitious purchases and sale transactions. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that all the dues to have been credited/paid back to the Government and there was no appropriation of benefit arising out of cash credit and as far as the allegation is concerned, no case is made out under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act. It is claimed that a prosecution would lie provided the offence specified is committed or caused to be committed and the benefits arising therefrom is retained or appropriated and in the instant case, there has been no such retention or appropriation of the proceeds of the offence and that apart, the entire amount of tax credit availed has either been reversed/returned or used for payment of tax. It is also claimed that there is no material on record to suggest that the registration of the so-called business concerns to be fake or non-existent. Lastly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t receipt of the goods), the charge is not sustainable in law. In support of reversal, the petitioner contends that there is proof to show that ITC for amount of Rs. 1,39,37,862/- for the month of July, 2017 is revealed from the GSTR-3B return and furthermore, Rs. 8,50,000/- has been paid through DRC-03 dated 24.07.2017 against the availment of fake ITC and for such reversal of ITC dated 03.01.2019, the ledger of the petitioner maintained on GSTN portal figured zero and therefore, it is an undisputed fact that the ITC was reversed and in so far as the allegation of appropriation of any benefit arising out of the tax credit claimed on the strength of fictitious purchase bills issued by the alleged non-existing business entities is concerned, it is incorrect and not substantiated. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1549 and other decisions cited, it is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused, who is in custody since August, 2021, should be enlarged on bail with any conditions. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been quashed by an order dated 23.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.157 of 2020 but is objected by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the opposite party contending that the DGGSTI has in fact been allowed to proceed with the investigation till it is concluded. It has been alleged that though a direction was to cooperate in so far as the proceeding before the CGST authority concerned by order dated 18.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No.157 of 2020, neither the proprietor nor the petitioner being the authorized agent of the firm extended cooperation rather avoided the investigation and did not attend on number of occasions despite being summoned and therefore, considering such conduct, the petitioner should not be released on bail as there is every likelihood of his abscondance from the local limits of the court. 9. It is the settled law that while considering the bail plea of an accused, detailed examination of evidence and consequential decision should always be avoided and the materials on record are only to be gone through to find out about existence of a prima facie case and if it is in the affirmative, then the next consideration would be, whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019. As is made to understand, the business premises of the firm was searched and inspected in the year 2018 by CGST Intelligence Wing and the petitioner's statement was recorded and was further examined on couple of times once in the year 2019 and soon before his arrest in the month of August, 2021 and in the meantime, final PR was submitted on 5th October, 2021. The petitioner is claimed to be the authorized agent of M/s. Arshee Ventures with his wife as its proprietor. The allegation is to the effect that the firm in question availed ineligible ITC and also made it available for other business entities by providing fake invoices and thus, passed on within and outside the State. The details of the documentation regarding the illicit transactions have been revealed during investigation. The conclusion which has been drawn by the investigating agency is entirely based on documents which are shown to have been seized during and in course of investigation. No doubt, the materials on record prima facie suggest the involvement of the alleged firm in engaging itself in activities whereby bogus ITC was claimed on the strength of fake invoices wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
