9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017. 2. As per prosecution case, tax returns of the firm, M/s Emm Vee Trading Company, whose proprietor is the petitioner, were examined for the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. It was discovered that the turnover of the taxpayer, i.e., the alleged proprietor concern of the petitioner, during this period, displayed significant and abnormal fluctuations, which were not typical in the normal course of business. Petitioner-the accused had thus engaged in tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crore. Additionally, tax authorities noted that the firm was registered at a residential address in the city, with no additional place of business specified in its registration certificate. Business activities were indicated to have been conducted from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Demand notice of Rs. 13.96 crore was raised against the proprietorship unit of the petitioner-accused under Section 74 for violating the provisions of the Act. FIR was also registered and the petitioner-accused was arrested from Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) on 29.10.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against petitioner, as per complaint, are that petitioner on the introduction of GST migrated to GST regime and during 2018-19 and 2019-20 made turnover of Rs. 88 crore, whereas, petitioner neither received nor supplied goods as shown in invoices. 3.1 He contends that petitioner was neither originator of invoices nor ultimate user/beneficiary of invoices. The actual user of invoices are beneficiaries there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner at the most has abetted the commission of the offence, if any committed, and no buyer, who took ITC was implicated though they joined the investigation. Similarly, no seller, who issued invoices and joined investigation, was arrested. He further argues that he was carrying on business of brokering the sale transactions of steel and iron between prospective buyers and sellers and has lost his entire business owing to his incarceration. 3.4 Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. He is not required for custodial interrogation. There is no likelihood of petitioner tampering with evidence and/ or influencing prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that petitioner was arreste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas, petitioner remained in custody with effect from 30.10.2020 to 25.05.2021, per custody certificate. He however, admits that no other case is pending against him. 7. Petitioner is being sought to be kept in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may either tamper with evidence and/ or influence witnesses. There is no probability of tampering with evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency. 8. Be that as it may, offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of nonviolent nature and in that sense his release on bail is not a threat to society at large by committing any violent crime. 9. Petitioner is stated to be 45-year old family person, and in his absence, his family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
