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>Anticipatory bail denied in Rs.137.28 crore input tax credit fraud case citing applicant as mastermind</h1> <h3>Mohammad Abbas Shabbirali Savjani Versus State of Gujarat</h3> Mohammad Abbas Shabbirali Savjani Versus State of Gujarat - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicant's apprehension of arrest under GGST and CGST Acts.2. Validity and implications of summons issued under Section 70 of GGST and CGST Acts.3. Allegations and evidence against the applicant in the tax fraud case.4. Relevance and admissibility of statements under Section 70 of the CGST Act.5. Necessity of custodial interrogation and the applicability of anticipatory bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicant's apprehension of arrest under GGST and CGST Acts:The applicant, a proprietor of M/s Lucky Steel, filed an application fearing arrest in connection with a case registered by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement Division, Ahmedabad. The applicant was summoned under Section 70 of the GGST Act, 2017, and Section 70(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.2. Validity and implications of summons issued under Section 70 of GGST and CGST Acts:The summons required the applicant to present documents regarding an inquiry against M/s Gurukrupa Traders and M/s Lucky Steel. The applicant, unable to attend due to being out of town, requested a later date and submitted the required documents. Despite this, the applicant did not appear personally, leading to a complaint under Sections 174 and 175 of the IPC read with Section 70 of the GGST and CGST Acts.3. Allegations and evidence against the applicant in the tax fraud case:The Public Prosecutor argued that the applicant was the mastermind behind a scam involving M/s Madhav Copper Limited, which showed fake purchases from fictitious entities amounting to Rs. 762.66 Crores and availed input tax credit of Rs. 137.28 Crores. Electronic evidence and WhatsApp chats linked the applicant to the scam, suggesting he was a prime beneficiary.4. Relevance and admissibility of statements under Section 70 of the CGST Act:The applicant's counsel argued that statements made under Section 70 have limited evidentiary value unless specific conditions under Section 136 of the CGST Act are met. However, the court noted that this argument was not pertinent at the anticipatory bail stage, emphasizing the need to consider broader legal parameters.5. Necessity of custodial interrogation and the applicability of anticipatory bail:The court referenced a previous decision denying anticipatory bail to a co-accused with a similar role, highlighting the necessity for custodial interrogation in complex scams. The court also noted that the applicant's cooperation was essential for the investigation. Given the gravity of the allegations and the material evidence presented, the court decided not to exercise discretion in favor of granting anticipatory bail.Conclusion:The court, after considering the submissions and evidence, concluded that the applicant's anticipatory bail application should be rejected. The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation due to the complexity and scale of the alleged tax fraud, aligning with previous judicial decisions and guidelines from the Hon'ble Apex Court.
TaxTMI 