TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of C. PRADEEP VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE SELAM ANR. [ 2019 (11) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT] the recent judgment of TARUN JAIN VERSUS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE DGGI [ 2021 (12) TMI 135 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, both the applicants namely Danish Sharma Naveen Chauhan be released on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ₹ 1 lakh with two local sureties of the like amount each, subject to the terms and conditions imposed. Application allowed. - Bail Application No. 510/22 and Bail Application No. 511/22 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2022 - SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI Present: Sh. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it which were not available to these companies. The alleged excess input tax credit was estimated to be ₹ 25 crores, out of which, the applicants have already deposited ₹ 5 crores each, which is evident from the copy of the challan enclosed with the paper book. It is further stated that the applicants have already joined the investigation and are appearing before the department/investigating agency as and when they are directed or required to do so. It is argued that subsequent thereto, fresh summons have been issued to them, and there is apprehension that they might be apprehended falsely into the present case and hence the present applications were moved. It is further stated that, admittedly, in the present case, ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance has also been placed on the case of C. Pradeep Vs. The Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Selam Anr., in SLP (Cri.) No. 6834 of 2019 vide order dated 06.08.2019; Naval Kumar Ors. Vs. CGST Delhi East in Bail Application No. 1795 of 2020 vide order dated 24.11.2020; Make My Trip Vs. Union of India, reported in 2016 (44) STR 481 (Del.) Akhil Krishan Maggu Vs. Dy. Dir. of DG of GST Intelligence, reported in 2020 (32) GSTL 516 (P H). On the other hand, the bail applications were opposed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel submitting that the accused persons are involved into availing inadmissible input tax credit from non-existent/ fictitious firms approximately to the tune of ₹ 43 crores, wherein, ₹ 21.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other firms are also pending and if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicants at this stage, it shall severally hamper the investigation of the case. During proceedings, on a specific query qua the amount, if any, deposited by the applicants, put to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, he, on instructions from the department, fairly conceded to the fact that ₹ 10 crores have already been deposited by the accused persons in the present case against the total liability, which may exceed to ₹ 70 crores. It was also fairly conceded that the applicants have already joined the investigation and their statement have also been recorded. It was also admitted that as of now, there are no allegations of any hampering of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
