TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and disposed of by this common order. 2. Applicants in above applications are in custody since 20.7.2021 in connection with Crime No.133/2020-21 registered in the office of Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of GST Intelligence Zonal Unit, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 16 & 132 (1) (b) & (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth 'the GST Act'). 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that during search and investigation at the premises of M/s J.R. Traders, Proprietor of which is Shri Vipin Tanna, non-applicant found that said firm is being managed and controlled by applicant Rohan Tanna as authorized signatory. Similarly, another firm is created by a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y non-applicant Department are not in accordance with law because without making assessment of amount of any fraudulent transaction of input tax credit, non- applicant entered into premises and office of M/s JR Traders, Raipur, Proprietor of which is father of applicant. It is also pointed out that as per case of non-applicant itself, applicant is not the Proprietor of M/s JR Traders, he has nothing to do with business of his father. Applicant is engaged in doing professional course, he is also doing part time accountancy work from which he is having some source of earning and it is that amount which is deposited in bank account of applicant. There is no transfer/deposit of any amount in his bank account through any alleged commercial deali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 respectively. 5. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for applicant Abhishek Pandey in M.Cr.C. No.6692/2021 would submit that applicant in no manner connected with business dealings of M/s Abhishek Marketing. Applicant is only a friend of co- accused Rohan Tanna. It is co-accused Rohan Tanna who incorporated M/s Abhishek Marketing and is having 80% share of M/s Abhishek Marketing. Entire business dealings and management of affairs of M/s Abhishek Marketing was managed by co-accused Rohan Tanna. Though on papers it is shown that applicant is having 20% share in business of M/s Abhishek Marketing but entire investment is made by co- accused Rohan Tanna. It is also argued that even if it is presumed that offence under Section 132 (1) (b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nks were collected. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for applicant Rohan Tanna that he is not involved in business activities of M/s JR Traders, hence, he cannot be charged for commission of offence under Section 132 of the GST Act is not correct, more so, when Shri Vipin Tanna is father of applicant Rohan Tanna. Material collected based on summons issued under Section 70 of the GST Act prima facie show that transactions are with co-accused Abhishek Pandey, JR Traders and accused Rohan Tanna. Applicants are not manufacturers, they have generated fake invoices and e-way bills. Looking to act of preparing fake invoices and e-way bills for availing input tax credit illegally, and giving same to several persons, as appearing from statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, learned counsel for applicant in M.Cr.C. No.6331/2021 that procedure adopted by non-applicant Department is defective as without assessment of amount involved, search and seizure conducted is contrary to provisions of the GST Act. Section 67 of the GST Act provides for power of inspection, search and seizure. For search and seizure, if Proper Officer only after recording reason to believe that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or stock of goods or claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement to evade tax under the GST Act; or goods of a person engaged in business of transporting or operator of a warehouse have escaped payment of tax m....