9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that on mid night of Friday i.e, 06.12.2024, he will be coming to Hotel Sunshine morning Ramprastha, Ghaziabad and will stay there till Saturday morning i.e., 07.12.2024. Further, as per the information he will carry some electronic devices containing details of bogus bills issued by him to the end user units without actual supply of goods. Moreover, it was also informed that he had hidden some electronic devices and records at the residence of his friend Shri Shiv Kumar at Panipat. Search was also conducted in Room No. 202 & 212 of Hotel Sunshine where Shri Chandan Sharma and his associates were staying and during the search 08 mobile phones were recovered from the possession of Shri Chandan Sharma and his associates, and out of the same 06 mobile phones of Shri Chandan Sharma and Shri Satender Kasana, were seized on the reasonble belief that the same were having some incriminating records and were required for further investigation. Search was also conducted in presence of Shri Satender Kasana. During the search at the said residential premise a blue colour backpack (Brand-American Touristar "Sai Electronics") containing laptops/ mobile phones, and one carton containing physical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operational at their respective Principle Place of businesses. Proprietor/partners of the 10 firms were summoned at by issuing summons at the registered Principle Place of Businesses of those firms as well as the registered residential address of each of them but except Shri Tushar Verma, Proprietor of M/s JSR Wire Industries, none appeared. Shri Tushar Verma, in his statement dated 14.01.2025 tendered that he is a helper in a operation theater light manufacturing firm M/s SS Tyagi Surgical Engineer and he did not register any firm with the GST department on his PAN No. BUUPV3897D. Shri Tushar Verma in his statement also tendered that he gave his PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Photo and other documents to Shri Sharma and signed the bank opening forms at insistence of Shri Sharma., Shri Chandan Sharma as Shri Sharma to whom he gave his PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Photo and other documents. Analysis of the GSTR-1M of all the 10 firms managed and controlled by Chandan Sharma revealed that ITC amounting to Rs. 59.80 Crores has been passed by issuing tax invoices of those firms. Chandan Sharma emerged out as the mastermind for the 10 firms managed and controlled by him, and the brain behind the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made a Junction without any basis. It is submitted that the accused/applicant is not at all concerned with the alleged passed on fake ITC. The statement u/s 70 was forcefully record by the DGGI GST officials and he was forced to sign various blank paper and statement recorded without the presence of family members, friends, nearby independent witnesses and advocate of the accused/applicant. The complaint make it crystal clear that present case is this classic example of abuse and misuse of power by the investigation officer who in connivance with the business rivals of the applicant implicated the applicant in a false case of fraudulently passed on input tax credit for INR 59,00,98,178/-. Complaint lacks documentary evidence and material to demonstrate that the applicant is beneficiary of passing on input tax credit INR 59,00,98,178/-. It is submitted that the applicant is not the beneficiary of even a single penny. He further submits that the alleged statement of the applicant/accused was said to be recorded on 07.12.2024, 08.12.2024, 27.12.2024, 30.12.2024, 31.12.2024 and 13.02.2025 respectively, wherein 10 firms were attributed to the applicant/accused although the applicant/ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of India & vide Orders dated 26.06.2020 and 10.033.2022, Abdul Shaji Vs. The Commissioned of Central Tax & Central Excise vide Judgment dated 22.04.2022, Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570. Paras Jain@ Rohan Jain vs. Union of India (2022 tmi 52 AHC, Ashish Kakkar vs. Union of India 2023, Ravinder Nath Sharma vs. Union of India AB (213). 6- Per contra Special Public Prosecutor counsel for (Customs and GST) Shri Lakshay Pratap Singh has vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and has specifically submitted that an intel was developed to the effect that applicant/accused Chandan Sharma associated with the fake billing racket, that is indulged in issuance of fake tax invoices of Copper Scrap to various manufacturer. Search was conducted in Room No. 202 & 212 of Hotel Sunshine where Shri Chandan Sharma and his associates were staying and during the search 08 mobile phones were recovered from the possession of Shri Chandan Sharma and his associates, and out of the same 06 mobile phones of Shri Chandan Sharma and Shri Satender Kasana, were seized on the reasonable belief that the same were having some incriminating records and were required for further investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and there may be additional material yet to be collected. If the applicant would enlarged on bail then he would hamper and temper with the evidence and would try to affect the ongoing investigation. He further submits that the competent authority has recorded reasons to believe u/s 69 of the Act before making an order of arrest. The intelligence officer has communicated grounds of arrest to the applicant/accused before affecting his arrest. He further prays that the bail application of applicant/accused is liable to be rejected. 7- In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the Judgments namely Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy V. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439. Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Appeal (Crl.). 1097 of 1999. Nimmagadda Prasad vs C.B.I. Hyderabad on 9 May, 2013 S.C. AIR 2013. Serious Fraud Investigation Vs Nittin Jokari 2019 S.C. (Cr. A No. 1381/2019). Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal etc. 2008 S.C. Cr A 1575/2008. Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengol & Aur 2011 S.C. Cra No. 1097/2003. Govind Agarwal vs State of U.P. and another 2020 ILC (ALL) (C.R.P.C 438 No. 1337/2020 Misc.). Rajesh Goyal vs Union of India (High Court of Rajasthan) S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were found non-existent at their principle place of business. Proprietor/partners of the 10 firms were summoned at by issuing summons at the registered Principle Place of Businesses of those firms as well as the registered residential address of each of them but except Shri Tushar Verma, Proprietor of M/s JSR Wire Industries, none appeared. Shri Tushar Verma, in his statement dated 14.01.2025 has admitted that one Sharma had took his document and open his bank account. When the photograph of the applicant/accused was shown to him them he had identified him as Chandan Sharma. Analysis of the GSTR-1M of all the 10 firms managed to controlled by Chandan Sharma revealed that ITC amounting to Rs. 59,00,98,178/- has been passed by issuing tax invoices of those firms. The description of the firms managed and controlled by the applicant/accused is as follows- GSTIN of Supplier Total ITC availed as per GST- 3B (in Rs.) Total ITC passed on as per GST- 1M (in Rs.) Mohit Industries 07DWXPM9245J1ZG 12,27,27,846 12,27,88,914 JSR Wire Industries 07BUUPV3897D1ZP 9,22,47,472 9,20,47,334 Capital Wire Industries 07GJWPS1992C1ZH 9,52,51,042 8,56,26,068 Vaani Industries 07COWPS8492A1Z6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant/accused is actually managing and controlling the affairs of the firms or not. The total amount of ITC availed by the applicant/accused is around 59,00,98,178/-, which is more than 5 Crores. Hence, the case of the applicant/accused false with in provisions of 132 (1) (c), 132 (1) (b) which is punishable under 132 (l) (i) of CGST Act 2017. 14. So far as the argument with regard to statement of Tushar Verma alleged proprietor of JSR Wire Industries is concerned that he has given different statements in different investigation against the persons and his statement is self-contradictory, as well as the fact that the amount of ITC availed and passed on by M/s JSR Wire Industries has been calculated not only in this particular matter but also in other matter by DGGI which is not permissible, suffice to say that the investigation is still going on and the statement of only one proprietor of firm out of 10 firms managed and controlled by applicant/accused is recorded. Evidence is yet to be collected. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the applicant/accused. Hence, the argument of the applicant is not tenable at this stage. 15. As far as the argume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
