TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is managing director of M/s. GE Godavari Engineering Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Company'). The petitioner has obtained registration under the provisions of the CGST Act vide GSTIN No.36AACCG9862H3Z7. Being the managing director of the company, the petitioner has collected and issued invoice or bill without supply of goods in violation of the provisions of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit rendered by him. The modus operandi adopted by the petitioner is that he indulged in issuing GST invoices, e-way bills and passing on input tax credit to various customer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the same an offence under Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act which is punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act. 5. It is also alleged that the GST amount involved for the operations carried out by the petitioner from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2020 is Rs. 10.89 crores (Rs. 5.46 Crores inward irregular ITC credit plus 5.43 crores outward irregular ITC credit), which is much higher than Rs. 500.00 lakhs, is an offence punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act. The said fact of petitioner working is explained by him in his statements dated 29.10.2020 recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no loss to the Government exchequer. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said document, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land and shares of the said Company were sold under the above sale deed and not by the bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as alleged by the respondent authorities. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the letter dated 11.09.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) Madhapur-III Circle, Hyderabad Rural Division to the Sub Registrar (SRO), Sadasivpet Mandal,Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, would submit that the respondent authorities have no objection to sale / mortgage immovable property of the Company as mentioned in its earlier letter dated 31.01.2019. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the principle laid down b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Manal, Sangareddy District, is also non-existent. 12. Learned standing counsel for the respondent would further submit that since both the premises are found to be not in possession of the said entity since 2016, there is no established premises of the Company. The mens rea of the management of the Company including the petitioner, managing director of the Company, can be clearly viewed which establishes the well though out conspiracy aimed at duping the exchequer by way of creation of a complex web of inter-connected companies engaged in fraudulent issuance of tax invoices without supply of goods or services to enable the recipient companies to avail and utilize fake input tax credit leading to loss to the Government exchequer. 13. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner interfering with the investigation and tampering with the evidence. With the said submissions, the learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities seeks dismissal of the present application. 16. In view of the above rival submissions, the allegations against the petitioner are that he has collected and issued invoices or bills without actual supply of goods in violation of the provisions of the CGST Act and the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit rendered by him and his Company. The modus operandi adopted by the petitioner is that he indulged in issuing GST invoices and e-way bills and passing on input tax credit to various customers without actual supply of goods. It is also s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onic credit ledger of the Company of the petitioner. Further, a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of CGST Act was issued to the banker of the Company. Steps have been undertaken to get the laptop recovered under panchanama dated 02.11.2020 to be forensically examined by CFSL, Hyderabad. Such forensic science laboratory report is awaited. Steps have been taken to prevent further loss to the Government exchequer by blocking the ITC credit under Rule 86A(1)(a) of the CGST Act as the competent authority i.e., the Additional Director General has accorded approval along with reasons to believe that the ITC has been fraudulently availed and is ineligible due to two counts i.e. the petitioner has availed credit on fake invoices obtaine....