9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolvement of M/s Praveen Industries GSTIN 06BOCPK0035A1ZU with legal name Naveen Kumar, in issuing fake invoices for the purpose of hoodwinking the Government through Bogus Input Tax Credit without actual receipt and supply of goods by the said dealer. On the basis of above said information I, Pradeep Yadav, Excise Taxation Officer being Proper Officer prefer to verify the facts. Rajiv Yadav, Taxation Inspector was sent to the given address of M/s Praveen Industries i.e. Opposite Din Dayal Palace, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari to physically verify the facts. Panchnama was prepared in the presence of Sh. Sandeep Yadav S/o Sh. Kartar Singh and Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Sh. Surjan Singh and it was found that no Sign Board of M/s Praveen Industries was affixed at the place as the same was removed on 26.12.2018. as per the statement of above two "Panchs" the firm often remain closed and they have never seen any sale purchase being done or delivery and supply of goods. From this verification it is clear that the firm is only involved in paper transaction only meaning thereby the firm is involved in raising fake invoices and taking Input Tax Credit benefit on the basis of such bills. In the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being used by his brother Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o Village-Akbarpur, Po.-Bithwana, Rewari. His statement was recorded in presence of independent persons "Panch's" namely Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal and Sh. Naresh Kumar. Photocopies of Sh. Naveen Kumar alongwith the above said independent witnesses was taken after taking his statement. Mobile No.8685868546 used by the above two firms belong to Parveen Kumar who is brother of Sh. Naveen Kumar proprietor of Parveen Industries. Ho he was also called and his statement was also recorded u/s 70 of the HGST Act, 2017. Wherein he stated that he alongwith Charan Singh, R/o Village Raliawas, Rewari got registered two firms from CA Sh. Amit Yadav namely Priya Industries and M/s Poonam Industries and all the relevant documents related to these two firms were got procured by the then provided the same to CA Amit Yadav. He further stated that Parveen Industries whose proprietor is his brother Sh. Naveen Kumar is being operated by Sh. Anupam Singla of Sirsa whose mobile No. is 8813000008. He further stated that all the above named industries are used to raise invoices and to take benefit of Input Tax Credit only. No goods are bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s related to these firms. During the course of investigation, it is well established that the said firm M/s Praveen Industries bearing GSTN 06ВОСРК0035A1ZU has fraudulently obtained the GSTN registration solely for the purpose of creating a fraud with the Govt. revenues by utilizing the accumulated bogus input tax credit by way of paper/bogus transactions but not actually supplying goods on ground. Hence, the said firm has acted in contravention of provisions of section 132 (1) (b) (c) of HGST Act, 2017 read with relevant section of the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017.Thus creating a loss of revenue to the state as well as Central Govt. exchequer: IGST Rs. 191754.00 SGST -Rs. 7105075.00,CGST-Rs. 7105075.00, 14401904.00 On the basis of above stated facts and circumstances I, undersigned have reasons to conclude that the main accused behind this fraud is Sh. Anupam Singla, R/o Shop No. 25, Sirsa Mandi, Sirsa (Haryana) who has conspired this fraud alongwith Sh. Charan Singh S/o Sh. Lal Singh, R/o Vill-Raliawas, District Rewari, Sh. Praveen Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o Vill-Akbarpur, Rewari and Sh. Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o Vill-Akb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3 years, 2 months and 16 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 28.01.2022 and charges stands framed on 24.05.2022, out of 40 witnesses, 8 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presump ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658 6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
