2021 (3) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. It is further argued by the Ld. counsel that the address which has been mentioned by the Department in its reply is nowhere concerned to the accused and there has been no document to show that the same belongs to the accused. Period of custody for more than 50 days is also averred as one of the grounds to seek bail in this case. In support of his averment, Ld. counsel has relied upon the following judgements: • Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694 = 2010 (12) TMI 1085 - SUPREME COURT, • Avinash Aradhya v. Commissioner of Central Tax (2019) 103 taxman.com 50.73 GST 125 (Kar.) = 2019 (3) TMI 373 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT • Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. v. Superinten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... • Bharat Raj Punj v. Commissioner of CGST Jaipur, 2019 (24) GSTL 321 (Raj) = 2019 (3) TMI 1187 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT • Yogesh Jagdish Kanodia v. State of Maharashtra & Anron dated 08.02.2021 = 2021 (2) TMI 386 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT 3. This is a case in which accused has been arrested for his involvement in the issuance of ineligible/bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fake/bogus firm to the tune of Rs. 150,31,56,389/- without actual supplying of any goods. Similarly, accused being the director of the firm M/s. B2X Sales Pvt. Ltd. have also availed the ITC to the tune of Rs. 10,93,21,314 crores. It is alleged that for the purpose of commission of offence, bogus firms were created in even in the name of the employees....