9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming to be permanent resident of Delhi. It is stated that applicant has been summoned u/s 70 of the Act by CGST HQ Preventive Branch Bhopal regarding an inquiry of input tax credit claimed by M/s S.R. Export and in the summons name of the applicant is mentioned as "key person of M/s S.R. Export". It is stated that applicant has no concern or connection with the above said firm as he is neither partner nor signatory in said firm. Earlier summons were issued calling upon the applicant for providing PAN card, Aadhar card, ITR etc. for last three years. It is stated that applicant has provided those documents through his counsel since repeatedly summons were received, therefore protection has been sought from possible arrest as apprehended by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible arrest, therefore approached the court at Delhi. Ld. counsel for accused/applicant relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma vs. Delhi Administration (Crl. Writ No.265/1990 decided on 11.09.1990) as well as order dated 01.10.2022 of this court. Ld. Sr. Standing counsel appearing for Department objects that the judgment of Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma (supra) cannot be of any use for applicant as in the facts of that case warrants were issued to be executed in Delhi and in that factual context High Court of Delhi held that the application for anticipatory bail was maintainable in Delhi. Having gone through the judgment in Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma's case (supra), without commenting much into the details o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without going into the details ld. Sr. Standing counsel appearing for Department has at the outset stated that as on today Department is not contemplating to arrest the applicant. However he needs to join the investigation for confronting certain statements recorded to show that he was connected with alleged transaction and therefore subject to the outcome of the investigation as on now the applicant is not required to be arrested. Ld. Counsel for the accused on the other hand submits that in view of the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Mobile Shoppe vs. Union of India (2023) 3 Centax 116 (Guj.), accused ought not to have been summoned as he has no concern with the firm. Moreover goods were exported and in view of Rule 96 of CGST Rules 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Department himself stated that as presently Department is not authorized under the provisions of law to arrest the accused nor any process in this regard has been initiated. However the further submits that there was no tangible reason furnished in the application of his apprehension of being arrested. As such he submits that very application is without basis. However receiving of summons by the applicant from the Department, more particularly when his father has already arrested and the fact that applicant has no concern with the firm is admitted. (ii) When the very initiation of action by the Department may not be in accordance with Rule 96 of the Act, though there is no denial to the fact that Department can still initiate the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
