TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners have been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year and 4 months and the prosecution agency has not chosen to prosecute the accused for any of the offences under the IPC and the only offence for which they are sought to be prosecuted is offence under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 wherein a maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years is prescribed. Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as the trial has not even commenced till date and 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited. In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioners would not be justified. Both the petitions, as such, are accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mily members. He has created and operated these bogus firms not only for availing inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) on the strength of fake invoices but also for passing on of fraudulent ITC to buyers on the strength of invoices which were not accompanied with any goods. The details of the firms created and operated by Sunil Kumar are as under: S.No. Trade Name GSTIN Name of Prop./Partner 1. M/s Hari Om Steels 03ALIPK6714G1ZB Sunil Kumar (his own firm) 2. M/s Ashutosh Steels 03CTSPK6268F1ZC Mandeep Kaur (em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,33,70,204/- 4. M/s Muskan Enterprises Diviya Chopra (wife of Raman Kumar Chopra) 2,26,32,710/- 5. M/s DK Enterprises Davinder Kaur (his ex-employee) 3,92,15,447/- 6. M/s Ganpati Steels Amanpreet Singh (husband of Mandeep Kaur) 29,52,320/- 7. M/s Chadha Steels Asha(his wife) 5,15,00,394/- TOTAL ITC 31,48,04,523/- 4. The learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gus firms for the purpose of availing input tax credit (ITC) on the basis of fake invoices. The total amount involved is stated to be more than Rs.31 crores. However, this Court finds that the petitioners have been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year and 4 months and the prosecution agency has not chosen to prosecute the accused for any of the offences under the IPC and the only offence for which they are sought to be prosecuted is offence under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 wherein a maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years is prescribed. Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as the trial has not ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
