TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrived in the present case - considering the ratio of the case of Tarun Jain Vs. DGGI the accused persons are also entitled to anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the IO on furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/, each, to the satisfaction of the officer making the arrest. Application disposed off. - Bail Application No. 1154/22 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 - (HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA) VACATION JUDGE/ASJ04/PHC/ND This is a joint application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of applicant/accused persons. Present: Sh. Harsh Sethi, Sh. Ankur Garg and Sh. Anant Nigam, Ld. Counsels for applicant/accused. Sh. Harpreet Singh, Ld. Standing Counsel for GST Department. IO Rajeev Nagar is present through VC. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of one Sh. Vikas Garg who stated to be the director of M/s Vikas Eco Tech Ltd. and Ms. Vikas Life Care Ltd. alongwith applicant Chandan Kumar (who is the CFO of the company), Sh. Vijay Sharma (who is the CEO of the company) alongwith one Mr. Ajay Dangi (who is stated to be an employee of the said company). Upfront, the counsel appearing for the parties have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... next submits that the claim that 11 suppliers were found to be fictitious itself indicates that the department has already made up its mind against the applicant accused and the application is, therefore, not premature. In support of his contention, the counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 22.04.2021 in Abdul Shaji Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax in Central Excise being Bail Application No. 220/2021 . He has contended that the Kerala High Court has categorically noted that a person apprehending arrest may move for anticipatory bail and he need not have been made an accused to seek the relief of anticipatory bail. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has next contended that the applicant herein is not a flyby night entity and is Director of an MSME which employs more than 250 employees and has substantial turnover, running into crores. He submits that, therefore, this is not a case where a party is at flight risk. The counsel has next contended that the entire evidence in the present case is documentary which is in the form of returns already furnished by the accused persons with the respondent department. He has submitted that purchases were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case be, of such compounding amount in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to (a) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any of the offences specified in clauses (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of section 132 and the offences specified in clause (l) which are relatable to offences specified in clauses (a) to (f) of the said subsection; (b) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence, other than those in clause (a), under this Act or under the provisions of any State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act in respect of supplies of value exceeding one crore rupees; (c) a person who has been accused of committing an offence under this Act which is also an offence under any other law for the time being in force; (d) a person who has been convicted for an offence under this Act by a court; (e) a person who has been accused of committing an offence specified in clause (g) or clause (j) or clause (k) of subsectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments.: (1) The proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 35. Chapter XIV of the CGST Act deals with inspection, search, seizure and arrest. It consists of sections 67 to 72. Section 70 deals with power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. As per subsection (1), the proper officer under the CGST Act has the power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any enquiry in the same manner as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Thus, Section 70 (1) confers the power on the proper officer to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary to either tender evidence or to produce documents etc. in any enquiry. Exercise of such a power is similar to the powers exercised by a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Subsection ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant matter is neither warranted nor provided for by the statute. Detaining the petition in Judicial Custody would serve no purpose rather would adversely impact the business of the petitioner. Since the present case is also u/s 132 (c) as was the case of Sh. Tarun Jain, in my view, the ratio of the said case applies on all fours to the present case. Needless to say that the evidence in the present case is also documentary. At this stage, I have also been shown the summons issued to Sh. Chandan Kumar and Vikas Garg dated 07.04.2022 by the counsel for the applicant which have been put to the IO who appeared through VC. The IO does not dispute that such summons were issued by Baldev Prasad Khanduri to the applicants. In my view, therefore, it cannot be said that the said accused persons cannot have any apprehension or that the stage of considering the grant of anticipatory bail has not yet arrived in the present case. The submission that Rs. 5 Crores which is equal to 12.5% of the alleged wrongful claim of ITC is also not disputed by the Ld. Prosecutor who appears for the department. Therefore, considering the ratio of the case of Tarun Jain Vs. DGGI as well as C. Pradeep Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
