AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, Nagaria Exports, Alliance Corporation, Pacific International and Faisal Traders. 2. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that the applicant along with his father Mohammed Hanif Nagaria and brother Faisal Hanif Nagaria carry business of exports of ready-made garment and imitation jewellery. They have incorporated nine companies. In furtherance of their business the applicants' company/firms purchased goods from M/s. Neha Impex & M/s Rohini Impex for export. The aforesaid firms in turn purchased their goods from Mahalaxmi Traders, allegedly non-existent. M/s. Neha Impex & M/s Rohini Impex and Mahalaxmi Traders were allegedly floated by the applicant, his father and brother by preparing false documents with intention to avail and utilize inadmissible 'Input Tax Credit' and to avail the export benefits. The father and the brother of the applicant were summoned and interrogated on 26th & 27th November, 2020. They were arrested in accordance Section 132(1)(b), 132(1(c) and Section 132 (e)(e) of CGST Act 3. The applicant preferred application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court apprehending arrest. The said application was rejected by the Sessions Court vide order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiation of proceedings under Sections 73 & 74 of CGST Act by issuing show cause notice in personal hearing a subsequent order demanding tax that the recovery proceeding under Section 78 and 79 can be invoked. It is further submitted that the applicant is only a partner in four out of the nine entities incorporated by his father. There are documents on record to show the transactions were genuine. The respondents have failed to provide information specifically in relations to the transactions made and the tax involved in respect to the said four entities in which the applicant is partner. Section 70 of CGST Act deals with power to summon a person to give evidence. It provides for information that assessee may give to proper office to facilitate the investigation. The applicant attended office of respondent on 6th January, 2021 to 8th January, 2021 and thereafter on 11th and 12 January, 2021. The applicant had provided all the documents in respect to the four entities which is evident from letter dated 11th January, 2021. The applicant has cooperated with the investigation. He was only interrogated on the first date and was required to attend the office on subsequent date. The fat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods to nine firms being managed by Faisal Nagaria the brother of applicant and Hanif Nagaria father of applicant and the applicant. The applicant is partner in four firms and the remaining firms also managed by same set of persons. The two dummy units M/s. Neha Impex & M/s Rohini Impex were apparently created with the intention of availing 'Input Tax Credit' and to cover up for the goods being exported by the said accused which they have procured without any documents. It is submitted that, during the interrogation the applicant have failed to cooperate. He has not answered questions regarding business put to him by the respondents and the only contention adverted by him is that he is not aware of the facts of the business and his father is conducting the same. The applicant failed to provide the details of CHA or shipping agent who assisted him in exporting the goods. During the course of investigation, statement of Jagdish Bhikhabhai Chauhan proprietor of M/s. Rohini Impex was recorded on 26th November, 2020. Statement of Sachin Waman Gaikwad, proprietor of M/s. Neha Impex was recorded on 5th January 2021. In their statements they have stated that they had never done any business....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of offence to dissapear or tampering evidence is well founded. The submission that, officer under the CGST Act cannot take custody of the arrested persons cannot be accepted. He also relied upon the decisions in the case of P. V. Ramana Reddy Vs Union of India (supra). In this decision it was observed that to say that prosecution can be launched only after completion of assessment goes contrary to section 132 of CGST Act, 2017. The said decision was confirmed by the Apex Court. Learned counsel also pointed order passed by division bench of this Court in writ petition No. 3804 of 2019. In this case it was contended that investigation cannot commences without following Section 154 or 155 of Cr.P.C. The Court refused to grant relief. Reliance is also placed on decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the case of Shailesh Rajpal V/s. Rajpal V/s Commissioner 2020 (32) GSTL 336 (MP) and Himani Munjal V/s. Union of India decided by Rajasthan High Court, 2019 (31) GSTL 608 (Raj). It is submitted that Section 69 of CGST Act, 2017, bestows the power on the commissioner, if he has reason to believe that, a person has committed an offence, specified in clause (a)(b)(c) or (d) of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the petitioners and the circumstances prevailing in that case the Hon'ble High Court refused to grant any interim relief to the petitioners. 10. The Telangana High Court also held that the object of pre-trial arrest and detention to custody pending trial are manifold such as : a) To prevent such person from committing any further offence. b) Proper investigation of the offence c) To prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner d) To prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police officer. 11. According to respondent the transactions prima facie suspicious. The complicity of the applicant is established during the course of investigation. It is pertinent to note that the case of the respondent is that all accused had acted in connivance with each other. The applicant had admitted that the applicant is partner in four firms. Statement of Sachin Gaikwad shows that, he does not own any firm by name M/s. Neha Impex. Jaghish Chauhan had approached him a....