AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on monthly remuneration to be paid to them. The petitioner is allegedly resorted to such tactics since prior to 2010. 3. The submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Naik for the petitioner is that in respect of as many as 20 companies, TIN number was granted after the spot verification by the officials of the VAT department. It is contended that the investigator has substantially relied upon certain affidavits/ statements of the coaccused. It is contended that such affidavits are procured from the co-accused by the respondents as consideration for bailing them. It is submitted that in the said affidavits, the said accused have owned responsibility of opening the accounts of various firms. 3.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Naik for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the averments made in the petition alleging the false implication of the petitioner so as to suppress his attempts to expose the corruption allegedly prevailing in the Sales Tax Department. It is pointed out that the petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation on the said subject and it is alleged that the said conduct has enraged the officials who have left no option to harass t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petition are as under (page 26) : FIRM CHARGE SHEET PAGE OPERATED BY/ MANAGED BY Shantilal Shah and Company 8037 8049 Mukesh Mehta K.K. Industries 8963 to 8975 8953 to 8957 Mukesh Mehta Ronak Traders 7957 to 7967 Suresh Kamble Maha Vaishondevi Udyog 8385 Mukesh Mehta Shree Vinayak Traders 8335 Mukesh Mehta Shree Vinayak Enterprise Mukesh Mehta Shree Maruti Limited Impex 3429 Mukesh Mehta Unique Trading Company 8463 Sanjay Patel Shri Sai Krupa Impex 4491 Mukesh Mehta Navkar Enterprise 8181 to 8201 Mukesh Mehta 3.6. The petitioner has also named other four companies and according to him the said companies were called upon to pay the taxes and thus are not shell companies. The companies show by the petitioner are as under (page 27) : FIRM CHARGE SHEET PAGE OPERATED BY/ MANAGED BY R.P.Mavar and Company 4637 to 4639 Pg. 4639 IMP have started paying Tax Rakesh P. Mavar Pg 4933 Brikesh Engineering and Weilding works Paid Tax Eklakh Ansari Pg 9355 SPG Petro Chem Paid Tax Navin Sushil Kumar Chaudh Pg. 7531 Pawar Trading and Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any, to the petitioner and in one of the firm namely Ronak Enterprise, the bank account bears the address of the petitioner's residence and in case of two firms namely, Shantilal A Shah & Co. and Vinit Enterprise, place of business bears address of Sabarmati and Chandkheda. 5. Submission is made by the petitioner that he is a whistle blower are sought to be repelled with the submission that even before his acting as a whistle blower, the investigation had started since February, 2014 for bogus billing transactions in the firm of K. Babulal and Co, and that thereafter, an application for lodgment of the FIR was given in March, 2014. On 15.04.2014, the Joint Commissioner Division-II, Ahmedabad proposed for cancellation of enrollment of the petitioner as commercial tax practitioner of the petitioner to Commissioner of Commercial Tax. 5.1. It is submitted that prior to lodgment of the FIR , raid was carried out by the Commercial Tax Department at 10/31 Kirti Society Sabarmati Ahmedabad and number of items were found from the residence of the Jignesh Mehta. - petitioner herein. The said items are enumerated at Annexure R6, R7 and R8 to the affidavit filed by the investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact that he used to operate the bank account of the petitioner for depositing and withdrawing the money in respect of these firms. Reliance is placed upon his affidavit which is annexed at Annexure R14. 5.8. It is submitted that the house which was used by Jignesh Mehta - the petitioner at Loha Bhavan, Navrangpura was taken on rent by Yashpal Makwana who was a friend of the petitioner wherein Internet connection was obtained by Yashpal Makwana and documents of dubious firms were filed by the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the statement of Yashpal Makwana in respect of the above submission. 5.9. It is contended that the accused has gained financial benefits by bogus billing activity and operated dubious firms. It is submitted that the accused was getting the commission or profit at the rate of 0.10 to 1.25 percentage on the fictitious transactions of the sales and purchases. For that purpose reliance is placed upon the above referred bank account. The details emerging in the bank account in that regard is elaborately pointed out in the affidavit. 5.10. It is submitted that in the HDFC Bank the petitioner and his associates deposited Rs. 19,14,000 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ointing out that the said material has been lodged in the said house which was possessed by the petitioner's, uncle Mukesh Mehta, that their house was under renovation. However, without making much emphasis on that fact, what is required to be noticed is that substantially, in most of the documents recovered the persons other than the petitioner are been named. In such a factual scenario, it is difficult to conclude at this stage that the petitioner accused had used the said material and there exists doubt as to whether the said material was being used by Mukesh Mehta to whom the premises were rented out by Geetaben, the owner of the premises. Therefore such recoveries prima facie do not constitute a credible information or reasonable suspicion qua the petitioner. Further except, as above, there is nothing on record to indicate that said house was possessed by the petitioner jointly with Mukesh Mehta. 8. The cash entries in the bank account also do not lead to credible information about incriminating act of the petitioner. There is no cogent material on record to indicate that said cash amount was received by the petitioner as consideration for his alleged acts. Normally a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13. It is submitted that except for the offence under Section 467 of the IPC, other offences are punishable with maximum punishment of 7 years and so far as offence under Section 467 is concerned, except wild averments, to attract the said provision, no material pointing out the forgery of any valuable security etc, is placed on record. Learned APP is not able to controvert the said aspect and thus it prima facie appears that except making submissions, there is no substantial material supporting the charges under Section 467 of IPC. 14. Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2011(3) SCC 694 as also in absence of any apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out. 15. Hence, this application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I-7 of 2016 registered with CID Crime Police Station on executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of ....