TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as GST Act). The impugned first information report has been lodged by Commercial Tax Officer (Special Investigation Cell), Commercial Tax, Range A, Ghaziabad alleging that on scanning of information available at GST Portal and information received from the mobile squad of Commercial Tax Department regarding the vehicles seized with goods without proper documents, exercising power under Section 67 of the GST Act, the Joint Commissioner (Investigation), Trade Tax, Range A, Ghaziabad, by order dated 06.11.2019, constituted and authorized a team of officers to carry out search and seizure operations at declared places of business. It is alleged that when the team visited the declared place, it found that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trol of Shahzad Alam and Dilshad Malik (petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2, respectively). On the basis of above inspection/inquiry, a prima facie conclusion was drawn that Dilshad Malik and Shahzad Alam had been indulging in preparing and utilizing bogus tax invoices for evading tax. As a result, summons were issued under Section 70 of the GST Act seeking their explanation. On the basis of the explanation submitted, further enquiry was conducted by the Inspection Team, upon which, it was found that Shahzad Alam is a resident of New Islam Nagar, Meerut and the place which was earlier inspected has been in the name of Shahzad Alam which had been let out to Azad Malik (petitioner no.3). In his explanation, Shahzad Alam stated that he carries....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bogus firms for the purpose of evading tax and had been preparing false documents/invoices for that end and that Azad Malik had been working as their Agent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned first information report, inter-alia, on the following grounds:- (a) that no firm/company whose rubber stamps were allegedly found at the specified place made a complaint of utilizing their seals for preparing bogus documents; (b) that there is no specific allegation in respect of evasion of tax in any specific transaction or movement of goods; (c) that the recovery is not supported by any public witness; and (d) that unless and until a specific finding is returned in respect of evasion of GST, no offence can be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only from search and seizure operations but also on the basis of explanation submitted by the suspects pursuant to the summons served upon them. Whether search and seizure operation memorandums, in absence of public witness, would have sufficient reliability is an issue to be examined at the stage of trial and not at this stage. In Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora and Ors.: (2013) 10 SCC 581 (para 30), the Apex Court had taken the view that an investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. In the instant case, we find that the allegations are in respect of getting bogus firms registered under the GST Code and of preparing bogus invoices for the purpose of evading tax. The above allegations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay suggest that the provisions of the U.P. Act overrides or expressly or impliedly repeals the provisions of the Penal Code. There is also no bar in the U.P. Act on lodging an FIR under the Code for offences punishable under the Penal Code even though, for the same act/ conduct, prosecution can be launched under the U.P. Act. Rather, section 131 of the U.P. Act impliedly saves the provisions of the Penal Code by providing that no confiscation made or penalty imposed under the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall prevent the infliction of any other punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under the provisions of the U.P. Act or under any other law for the time being in force. The argument of the lea....