TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court denies arrest protection in GST Act case citing fraud scheme involvement, upholds investigation</h1> <h3>Ashish Jain Versus Union of India and ors.</h3> Ashish Jain Versus Union of India and ors. - 2019 (29) G. S. T. L. 6 (Bom.) Issues:Challenging summons under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without following proper procedure.Analysis:The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the summons issued by the respondent under the CGST Act, contending that the investigation cannot commence without following the procedure under Section 154 or 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner argued that for a cognizable offense, the respondent should first register an FIR and then investigate, and for a non-cognizable offense, permission from the Magistrate must be obtained. The petitioner sought relief from arrest based on these grounds.Affidavit and Allegations:An affidavit in reply was filed by Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Preventive, alleging that the petitioner had created fictitious companies and defrauded the government by issuing fake invoices and availing Input Tax Credit without actual supply of goods. The respondent contended that the petitioner was a key beneficiary and mastermind behind a fraud involving non-existent supply of goods amounting to about 150 crore with fraudulent credit of Rs. 27 crore. It was argued that the offense was cognizable, and therefore, the summons were rightly issued. Reference was made to a recent order of the Apex Court in a similar matter.Court's Decision:The High Court noted the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offense under the CGST Act, which was being investigated by the respondent authorities. Referring to a previous case, the Court mentioned that the Apex Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Telangana High Court, implying a disinclination to interfere in such matters. Citing the Apex Court's order, the High Court declined to grant protection to the petitioner from arrest, stating that they were bound by the higher court's decision. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to entertain it further.
TaxTMI 