TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kapil Manglani, Akash Singh Kushwaha and Rakesh Prajapti, reveals that the applicant is the main accused in these GST refunds by forming fake firms . GST-RI and GST-3B sales and purchase of as many as 25 bogus firms are liable to be investigated, hence, looking to the gravity of the offence and huge amount of refund of GST through bogus firms, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [ 2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT ] held that The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 in respect of a consignment exported by Rakesh Prajapati proprietor of M/s Ruday Chemicals in which the shipping charges are Rs. 8,00,000/-. An FIR was registered at Crime No. 23/2023. An investigation has revealed that a refund of GST amounting Rs. 1,47,30,914/- was credited to the account of co-accused Meherban Singh proprietor of ABC Exports and the mobile number of the present applicant was found linked in the aforesaid bank account. This Applicant was added accused in FIR No. 23/2023, arrested on 26.04.2023 and sent to police remand for 13 days. The family members of the applicant decided to settle the dispute with the complainant. That bail application M.Cr.C. No. 22925/2023 has been allowed vide order dated 29.05.2023, by grantin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he non-applicant, therefore, in order to harass the applicant, now they are trying to arrest him. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel is relying on the judgment passed by different High Courts in the case of (i) Shravan A. Mehra Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax, Anti Evasion, GST Commissionerate, Bangalore, (2019) 23 GSTL 449, (ii) Nitin Verma Vs. State of U.P. and another (2021) 49 GSTL and (iii) in Bail Application No.3771/2021 CRL. M.A. No.16552/2021 by High Court of Delhi At New Delhi decided on 26.11.2021 in which similar facts and circumstances, anticipatory bail has been granted. At last Shri Chabra learned senior counsel submits that the maximum sentence is 5 years under section 132 of the CGST Act hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without taking this applicant on remand, the effective interrogation cannot be done in the natter. Not only Meharban Singh but other persons have named this applicant for opening bogus firms to claim GST refunds. The Magnitude of GST refund may cross more than 80 crores. The guidelines have been followed. The Joint/Additional Commissioner has approved the superintendent in this investigation and arrest. The non-applicant is investigating within the purview of the GST Act and the guidelines. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance judgment passed in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SSC 24. Learned counsel further submits that so far bail granted to the applicant by this High Court vide M.Cr.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
