TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fessional statements against the maker of the same. In the present case, much reliance has been placed by the complainant department on the statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The truth of these statements shall be seen at the time of trial - The applicant / accused has been examined thrice by the complainant. The time period for seeking custodial interrogation of the applicant / accused has already lapsed in terms of Section 167(2) CrPC. The applicant / accused Aman Chhatwal @ Aman Singh S/o Ajit Singh is allowed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. CMM concerned / Ld. Link CMM concerned / Ld. Duty MM concerned, subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed. - Bail Application No. 1187/2022 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2022 - SH. RAJINDER SINGH ASJ-06, NDD, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI Present: Sh. Harpreet Singh, Ld. Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI. Sh. Rahul Raheja, Sh. Rohit Raheja and Sh. Gaurav Prakash, Ld. Counsels for the applicant / accused. IO Inspector Sumit Surolia from DGGI. Reply filed by the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Kllifton Forge Pvt. Ltd. and proprietor of M/s AVP Trading Company, M/s A-One Enterprises, M/s Bhawna and Co. and M/s Shweta Enterprises for the purpose of fraudulent trading of invoices without supply of goods. The applicant / accused also acted as a mediator where he supplied the invoices of the firms created and operated by other persons and he received certain amount of commission. It is further stated that applicant / accused is the mastermind of the entire syndicate. Arguments heard. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant / accused that the remand application filed by the department before the Ld. CMM concerned is at Page No. 33 of the paper book. On this application Section 132(1)(b)(c) and (l) of GST Act, 2017 are mentioned. In Para No. 6 of this application, the names of only three companies are mentioned with regard to the applicant / accused. The allegations with regard to these three companies are only for a sum of Rs.6.63 Crores. The other companies against which the amount of Rs.77.11 Crores is shown not owned by the applicant / accused. These companies were owned by Lt. Smt. Aarti Kapoor. Section 132(1)(l) is regarding attempt to commit offence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Make My Trip (Supra), it was submitted that then the main issue before the Hon'ble High Court was whether service charges collected by the petitioner were to be deposited under GST. The nature of service provided by the petitioner was under consideration, whether the petitioner was providing the services of tour operator or the services of hotel operator . The case was concerned with the classification of the services provided by the petitioner therein. As such, the judgment Make My Trip (Supra) does not apply to the present case. With regard to the cancellation of GST registration of the said three firms, it was argued that these documents do not show that there were no dues of GST against the said assessees. Even after cancellation of GST registration, the department is not barred from investigating the case. The amount of Rs.6.63 Crores is also beyond the statutory threshold and makes the offence non-bailable. The applicant / accused is the mastermind of the entire racket. Section 132 of the CGST Act provides that whoever commits or causes to commit it shows that even abatement is covered under Clause 1 of Section 132 of the CGST Act. Apart from Clause (l), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otomy whereby the amount of Rs.6.63 Crores of ineligible ITC concerned with the firms owned and operated by the applicant / accused is sought to be separated from the amount of Rs.77.11 Crores of ineligible ITC. In this regard, Ld. SCC for the Department submitted that in Section 132 of the CGST Act, it is mentioned that whoever commits or causes to commit . As such, no distinction can be made with regard to these amounts to classify the same as bailable and non-bailable offences. In my considered opinion, if an accused is charged with the commission of bailable as well as non-bailable offences, in the same transaction no distinction can be drawn to separately view each offence either for the purpose of charge or trial and conviction if any. The entire transaction has to be seen. However, for the purpose of grant of bail, the gravity of the allegations directly against the applicant / accused, incriminating material available against the applicant / accused can be seen. In short, the role of the accused in the entire transaction can be considered for deciding the bail application of the applicant / accused. In the reply filed by the department, it is clearly stated that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings , within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 136 of the CGST Act provides for the relevancy of such statements recorded under Section 70 of the act. It says that such statements shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this act, the truth of the facts which it contains . It shows that the statements made by any person, including the accused under Section 70 of the CGST Act are relevant. However, the relevancy is only for the specific purpose of proving the truth of the facts contained therein. There is no specific provision which allows the said statements to be used against the maker of the said statements like a confessional statement. It is pertinent to observe that appropriate officer under Section 70 of the CGST Act is given the powers to summon like a civil court. This power is only procedural, for compelling the attendance of the person summoned, this power does not have any direct bearing upon the manner in which such statements are to be used during inquiry, trial or other proceedings. Section 70(2) provides that every inquiry under Section 70( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder this Act may, either before or after the institution of prosecution, be compounded by the Commissioner on payment, by the person accused of the offence, to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case by, 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 sub-section (l) of section 132 and the offences specified in clause (l) which are relatable to offences specified in clauses (a) to (f) of the said sub-section; (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 supplied 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 offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
