AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition seeking quashing and setting aside of summons issued by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Jaipur and Alwar and a further prayer that the authorities be directed not to take any coercive action against the Petitioners. 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director of M/s Leel Electricals Limited, Petitioner No.2. The Central Goods And Service Tax Department conducted a raid on 17.01.2019, at the premises of the Petitioners' Company at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. Senior Officials of the company, Shri Mukut Bihari Sharma, Director and Chief Financial Officer (CF....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Del.4951, wherein the Delhi High Court held that Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not permit the Sale Tax Department to by pass procedure before going ahead with arrest of a person. Decision to arrest a person must not be taken on whimsical grounds, it must be based on 'credible material'. 6. It is contended by counsel for the Petitioners that the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court was affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8080/2018 "Union of India & Ors. vs. Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd." decided on 23.01.2019, wherein the Apex Court has affirmed the judgment of the Delhi High Court and held that it is mandatory to follow the procedure contained in Section 73-A(3) & (4) of the Finance Act, 1994 before goi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the reply. As per which, around Rs. 328 crores input tax credit has been fraudulently claimed by the Petitioner and its sister concerns. The fraudulent claim of input tax credit by the Petitioner No.2 is to the tune of Rs. 40 crore 53 lakh. 11. It is contended that Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Act gives powers to the proper officer to summon any person whose attendance is necessary either to give evidence or to produce document or any other thing in any inquiry. It is argued that notices have been issued and Petitioner is bound by the law to appear before the Proper Officer. It is also contended that though power of arrest is available under Section 69 of the Act, but the same depe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted amount with GST but the GST was not deposited. The amount was passed on to the hotels alongwith GST after retaining commission, no effort was made by the Department to collect evidence from the hotels, as to whether, they had deposited GST with the Department. 14. It is also contended that from the evidence of the Officials of Petitioner No.2, Company, it is revealed that M/s Leel Electricals Limited, Petitioner No.2, and its various group/sister/related companies, as per the statutory disclosure of related party mentioned in Note 40 of the Balance Sheet, availed fraudulent input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 328 crores 36 lakhs. It is contended that till date six summons have been issued to the Petitioner but he has failed to app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as also to the fact that the Petitioner No.1 was residing abroad and was not involved in day to day affairs of the company. This Court is not convinced by the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Petitioner for the very reason that Petitioner No.1 is the Director of the company since 08.08.2012 and has been receiving managerial remuneration from the company to the tune of about Rs. 60 lakh per annum. Petitioner No.1 became the Managing Director of Petitioner No.2 on 30.05.2018, hence contention of counsel for the Petitioner that he was not involved in day to day affairs of the company, cannot be accepted. 20. The case set up by the Department is that the Petitioner has claimed input tax credit on fake invoices, which fact is not co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Petitioner No.2 and the total input credit wrongly claimed by the company and its sister concerns is to the tune of Rs. 328 crores. 24. From searches, it was revealed that the company had taken input tax credit on bills issued by other concerns, whereas CR Sheet/Coils and iron sheets mentioned in the bills never reached the unit. Petitioner No.2 issued exit pass even when they had not received the goods, the company had thus shown fake purchase of Rs. 225.90 crores and had wrongly claimed input credit to the tune of Rs. 40.53 crores. 25. The judgment referred to by the counsel for the Petitioners "Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India" (supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case as in make my trip, the compan....