TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submitted that applicant/accused was shown arrested on 18.07.2019 by the officers of DGGI, GZU during the morning hours of 06:10 A.M. at the residential premises of the applicant/accused which happens to be in New Delhi. It has been further submitted that the complainant went out of the scope of its jurisdiction and arrested the applicant/accused out of the jurisdictional area and that too without informing the local jurisdictional police station or the officers of DGGI-DZU who happens to be the jurisdictional tax officers, hence making the entire arrest illegal and acted beyond the scope of the duty of the complainant. The statement of the applicant/accused was recorded on 18.07.2019 and the same was recorded after his arrest and hence the same cannot be treated as admissible in the present case as the statement was recorded after the arrest of the applicant/accused and the same is barred by the Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 4. Further, it has been submitted that the arrest memo of the applicant/accused is violative of the set laws and rules laid therein by the Hon'ble Apex court and various other courts of the country as there were no witnesses to the said ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicant/accused has claimed and availed inadmissible and wrongful ITC and has passed on the same by issuing alleged fake invoices. The case of the department does not show that the applicant/accused has violated which provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 as the department has booked the present case under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 but has not specified that under what particular clause from a to d" of the said section has been violated by the applicant/accused. What has been purposely projected before this Court in respect of the applicant/accused is that the ITC so claimed by the applicant/accused is claimed wrongfully but it has not been shown how it has been claimed wrongfully and further how did the department reached such an inflated figure of Rs. 87.78 crores as the applicant/accused have already paid excess tax to the Govt. ex chequer and in no way has defrauded the Govt. ex-chequer. 8. Further, the department without looking into the fact that the applicant/accused has already paid the output tax of Rs. 87.78 crores for the alleged circular trading and then the applicant/accused have claimed input credit as in fact it has been carried forward from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent case the main accused has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and moreover the Constitutional Validity of Section 69 and 132 have been challenged and the same is still pending before various courts of India. 13. Notice of the bail application was given to complainant/DGGI who filed reply opposing the bail application contending that all the averments/allegations made in the application, unless specifically admitted, are wrong and denied. The bail application is not maintainable as the applicant is not in custody. The applicant has concealed very material facts from this Court. The applicant has not disclosed number of bail applications declined by this Court and Hon'ble Sessions Court. According to the department, the applicant had lost his 4th bail application in Sessions Court. The applicant has not annexed the copies of the orders rejecting his bail applications. The applicant has also concealed the order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 04.02.2020. The order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is reproduced as under:- "When the Bench was dismissing the instant petition for grant of regular bail, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....466: (xxiii) State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal. Jitamalji Porwal: (1987) 2 SCC 364. (xxiv) State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751. (xxv) Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2015) 16 SCC 1. (xxvi) Sunil Dahiya vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2016) SCC Online Del 5566. (xxvii) Suresh Thimiri vs. The State of Maharashtra: (2016) SCC Online Bom 2602. (xxviii) Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs Union of India: (2016) SCC Online Bom 9938. 15. It has been further submitted that the plea for bail had already been dismissed by the Ld. Sessions court vide order dated 21.01.2020. There is no fresh ground for bail/interim bail. There is no material change in the circumstances. As regards territorial jurisdiction, offence had been partly committed within the jurisdiction of this Court. The cognizance had been taken. Cognizance has not been challenged before any Court. In case of conviction, the above named is liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment upto five years, Attention of the Court is invited to the opening words of the Section 132 of GST Act, which starts "whoever." Rest of the averments were denied. It was argued by Senior Public Prosecu....