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>Denial of Protection from Arrest Under Tax Act: Emphasis on Alleged Offence Severity</h1> <h3>Bhupendra Majethia Versus Superintendent (A.E.) Investigation A, Mumbai CGST Mumbai, The State of Maharashtra</h3> Bhupendra Majethia Versus Superintendent (A.E.) Investigation A, Mumbai CGST Mumbai, The State of Maharashtra - TMI Issues:1. Application for protection from arrest under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act.2. Allegations of coercion, detention, and demand for bribe during investigation.3. Dispute regarding the validity of tax invoices submitted by the applicant.4. Necessity of arrest for further interrogation and prevention of evidence tampering.Analysis:Issue 1: The applicant sought protection from arrest under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, claiming apprehension of arrest by the Superintendent, Investigation, C.G.S.T. The applicant, engaged in trading of gold and diamonds, alleged coercion, detention, and demand for bribe during investigation, leading to the lodging of a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation. The applicant contended that all relevant records were submitted, and no assessment of tax liability was made, thus challenging the necessity of arrest.Issue 2: The respondent resisted the application, arguing that the applicant availed input tax credit against non-existent suppliers, causing a loss to the State Exchequer. The respondent emphasized the seriousness of the offence, the need for further interrogation, and the risk of evidence tampering if the applicant remained free. The respondent sought rejection of the application to proceed with the investigation.Issue 3: The applicant relied on various judgments emphasizing the necessity of assessment before concluding an offence and the entitlement to protection from arrest for individuals without criminal antecedents. In contrast, the respondent cited precedents highlighting that prosecution under Section 132 does not depend on assessment completion, and actions can be taken without issuing show cause notices.Issue 4: The court analyzed the facts, noting that physically verified entities were found non-existent, supporting the respondent's claim of the need for further interrogation and prevention of evidence tampering. The court rejected the applicant's arguments of coercion and demanded bribe as insufficient to halt the investigation. Emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation due to the significant tax credit involved, the court denied protection from arrest, prioritizing national and societal interests over individual liberty.In conclusion, the court rejected the application for protection from arrest, considering the seriousness of the alleged offence, the risk of evidence tampering, and the necessity for a thorough investigation into the significant tax credit issue.
TaxTMI 