9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Team and 02 officers have been arrested, therefore, this Court find that there is no further scope for enquiry by the CBI. The report be kept in a sealed cover. In the order dated 13.10.2021, already an objection has been taken that second anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The operative part of the order dated 13.10.2021, reads as under:- "The new ground set up by the petitioner in this 2nd petition is two fold: (a) The petitioner is a registered informer of General Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate (GST) i.e. respondent No.2 and has helped in unearthing many scams and GST Evasion for which he has been granted award. (b) The petitioner is enrolled as a G - Card Holder by the Department of Customs on behalf of M/s. Safe Cargo Clearing Services and being a G - Card Holder, the petitioner is assisting in moving the files of the parties in the Department of Customs for handling the custom clearances and has also obtained a KYC Form, Import-Export Code, PAN Card, Aadhar Card, etc. from Prabhjot Singh. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has initially given the information to GST Department regarding a consignment which was illegally cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court is also taken on record. On merits, it is stated that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the earlier one was dismissed on merits. Reliance is also placed on an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Criminal) No.213 of 2021 titled as "G.R. Ananda Babu vs State of Tamil Nadu and another", wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the successive anticipatory application ought not to be entertained especially when the accused is absconding and not co-operating with the investigation and special reasons for change of circumstances cannot be invoked once it is rejected by speaking order that too by the same Bench. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has argued that on 09.04.2021, the consignment of prohibited goods was released/cleared manually in an illegal manner by Rambir Singh Gahlaut (Superintendent) and Sandeep Kumar (Inspector) of Customs Department while hand-in-glove with the importer Prabhjot Singh, GCard Holder that the petitioner - Sunil Dutt and Paramjit Singh, a conduit facilitating the import of goods on behalf of the importer without payment of custom duty. It is further stated that lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 has also submitted that till date, no bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner as he has only been given a notice under Section 104 of the Customs Act to appear and thereafter, another notice has been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, no arrest warrants has been issued, so far. It is, thus, submitted that the present petition be dismissed. In sharp contrast to the arguments raised by learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing for Anti-Evasion, Central Goods & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Ludhiana i.e. respondent No.2 has argued that in the statement of the Incharge of the goods and conveyance i.e. one Krishan Mohan, who was the driver of vehicle bearing registration No.PB03AZ-0618 (i.e. above container No.TLXU2005983) has declared that the same is containing Aluminium Scrap valuing Rs.9,44,166/-. It is further submitted that in the physical verification and inspection of the conveyance goods and documents, it was found that no e-way bill was tendered for the goods in the movement and prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds that it is very strange and surprising that 02 Departments i.e. Department of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana - respondent No.1 and AntiEvasion Unit, Central Goods & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Ludhiana - respondent No.2, are fighting tooth and nail regarding fixing the liability as to how the consignment was cleared manually without making any entry by the Customs Department and as per stand of the Customs Department, there is a collusion of the official of the CGST Department with the petitioner and the other accused and in that process, the CGST Department is posing the petitioner as a Secret Informer/Source and has even filed a Secret Note under the signatures of Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, giving a clean chit to the petitioner - Sunil Dutt. Though the officers of Customs Department as well as the CGST Department, derives their powers from the respective Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and both Departments are part of premium investigating agencies, however, instead of fighting and levelling allegations against each other, the office of the Director General of both the Departments, should have inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner did not appear before the Department concerned as he was apprehending arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was in fact called by Sandeep Kumar, Inspector-ICD CONCOR (Import) to sought the services of the petitioner for a party, which was close to Sandeep Kumar, Inspector-ICD CONCOR (Import) and in that process, by showing aluminium scrap to be imported, certain documents were prepared by Sandeep Kumar, which were submitted before the Customs Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was neither approached by the party directly nor he had submitted any documents for the physical examination of the goods. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact on coming to know that instead of aluminium scrap, 39,60,000 cigarettes (100 mm each) of four different brands were imported without paying the custom duty, the petitioner made a representation to the Department and on his complaint, the action was initiated against the erring Custom Officers and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely nominated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a communi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
