TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so averred by Ld, senior counsel that accused joined the investigation as and when called by the department. It is further argued that Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Nikit Mittal v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 76 GST 708 (Jharkhand) = 2019 (11) TMI 879 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, wherein upon an undertaking received from the accused to join investigation and offer to reverse the alleged fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit, the benefit of anticipatory bail was granted by the Court and accused here is ready and willing to reverse the blocked and un-utilized credit amounting to INR 2,55,18,717/- Crores. It is further submitted that the Learned ACMM has rejected the submission of the applicant that the law laid down by Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. 32 Vs. Union of India, reported as (2016) 44 STR 481 (Del.) = 2016 (9) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT, is not applicable in the present case due to the law laid down by Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the matter of P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India, reported as 2019-TIOL-873-HC-TELANGANA-GST = 2019 (4) TMI 1320 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT. It is submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of India MANU/RH/0441/2020 = 2020 (10) TMI 672 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT * Abhay Sanatbhai Bhatt Vs. Commissioner of CGST MANU/GJ/0627/2019 = 2019 (4) TMI 1566 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT * Akshay Dinesh Patel Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax MANU/GJ/1259/2020 = 2020 (4) TMI 334 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT * Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Vs. State MANU/KA/2222/2020 = 2020 (6) TMI 379 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT * Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI MANU/SC/1375/2011 = 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT * P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India, reported as 2019-TIOL-873-HC-TELANGANA-GST = 2019 (4) TMI 1320 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT * P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India 2019 (26) GSTL J175 (S.C.) 134 - 135 = 2019 (5) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT 2. According to the brief fact of this case as stated on behalf of respondent, DGGSI. It is alleged that the companies owned and controlled by accused Rakesh Kumar Goyal have availed most of the amount of ITC from companies owned or controlled by said Rakesh Kumar Goyal himself. Thus, there was a complex web of circular trading among these companies which was used to pass on ITC, without any actual payment of GST at any stage. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... non-existent or were passenger vehicles or JCB loader. It is alleged that only invoices, without goods, were circulated amongst the companies of Rakesh Kumar Goyal which were ultimately sent to companies of Shri Vikas Chowdhary and Shri Vikas Chandan. 4. This bail application is strongly opposed by Ld. counsel for respondent on the ground that offence has been committed in a very planned manner in the connivance of co-accused in which huge losses are inflicted upon the Govt. Exchequer. Inter alia, it is further contended that accused has failed to join the investigation, he has not provided the necessary documents and information, he even has not got his statement recorded and thereby mislead the investigating agencies. Ld. counsel further refuted the bail on the ground of parity as the role of accused is of main accused and his company falls under Level-1. Applicability of judgement of Hon'ble Telangana High Court while differentiating with the ratio of the judgement in Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd to the facts of this case also pleaded. 5). In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for DGCI has placed reliance upon the following judgements: * Crl. Appeal No.1938/2017 - A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that it were shown to have been manufacturing the goods and passing on input tax credit to the companies of the co-acussed without actually carrying out any manufacturing by creating forged and fabricated documents. Parity also not available on the ground that accused firm has been most of the time falls under level 1 or level 2 but not paid any tax in cash but shown the same to have been paid in their returns. Furthermore, there are allegations against the accused that the total ITC passed on by the companies of R.K. Goyal is estimated to more than Rs. 180 Crore, including ITC passed/ circulated amongst his own companies. 8. So far as, the contention of Ld. Counsel about discharging of tax liability and willingness of the accused to reverse the blocked and unutilized credit amounting to INR 2,55,18,717/- Crores is concerned, the liability of accused is much higher in this case. As it alleged against him that in the commission of the alleged offence accused has claimed to have purchased the raw material but fail to produce any documents in this regard. In fact as alleged, no manufacturing was going on in the firms of the accused, statement of guard have been taken which shows th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ores, there is nothing wrong in the respondents thinking that persons involved should be arrested. Generally, in all 64 other fiscal laws, the offences that we have traditionally known revolve around evasion of liability. In such cases, the Government is only deprived of what is due to them. But in fraudulent ITC claims, of the nature allegedly made by the petitioners, a huge liability is created for the Government. Therefore, the acts complained of against the petitioners constitute a threat to the very implementation of a law within a short duration of its inception. 61. In view of the above, despite our finding thatthe writ petitions are maintainable and despite our finding that the protection under Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., may be available to persons said to have committed cognizable and non-bailable offences under this Act and despite our finding that there are incongruities within Section 69 and between Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, we do not wish to grant relief to the petitioners against arrest, in view of the special circumstances which we have indicated above." Although Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Telangana dealt with the issue of p....