TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 11,01,04,357/- using fake invoices or bills issued by M/s. M.M.Bullion, M/s. Goldmine Bullion, M/s. Gajmukhi Bullion and M/s. Golden Bullion, without supply of goods. Thus, the applicant committed offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act. 4. The learned advocate Shri. Ashok Singh for the applicant argued that all precautions were taken by the applicant while dealing in the transactions. The applicant has maintained all the tax registers, purchase registers, bank statements in respect of the transaction with M/s. M.M. Bullion, M/s. Goldmine Bullion, M/s. Gajmukhi Bullion and M/s. Golden Bullion. The copies of whatsapp chat with Dipesh Gujar show that the applicant genuinely dealt with Goldmine Bullion. The provisions of CGST Act have not been followed as vide Section 69, the commissioner must have reasons to believe, whereas in the case in hand the arrest memorandum shows that the reasons were formed by the Inspector and not commissioner. There is no determination of assessment or no quantification of amount which is necessary to effect the arrest. Without determining the quantum of liability the applicant is de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition (Cri.) 3543 of 2020, decided on 02.12.2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 16- Akhil Krishan Maggu V/s. Dy. Dir. G.D.of GST Intelligence, 2020 (32) GSTL 516 (P & H) 17- Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd V/s. Union of India, 2016 (44) STR 481 (Del) 18- Sh. Raghav Agarwal V/s. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST Delhi North, BA 4019 of 2020 decided on 21.12.2020 by Hon'ble Delhi High court. 19- Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd V/s. Superitendent of GST & C. Ex., Salem, 2019 (25) GSTL 321 (Mad.) 20- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors, Cri. Appeal No. 2271 of 2010, decided on 02.12.2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 21- Anil Mahajan V/s. Commissioner of Customs & Anr, 2000 Cr.L.J.2094. 22- Vijaychandrakant Trivedi V/s. State of Gujrat, Cri. Mis. Appln No. 21179 of 2019 decided on 10.12.2019 by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court. 23- Sanjay Chandra V/s. CBI, Cri. Appeal No. 2178 of 2011 decided on 23.11.2011 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 24- H.B.Chaturvedi V/s. CBI, Bail Application 572 of 2010 decided on 31.05.2010 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 8. The respondent also relied on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shaikh, Adridharan Das and Sunita Devi are held to be per incurriam. The case of 'Anil Mahajan' is in respect of bail under the Customs Act. In the case of 'Sanjay Chandra' bail was granted in the economic offence. 10. In the cases of 'Abhay Bhatt', 'Hanumanthappa Patherera', 'Manmohan Lalman', 'Sharavan Mehra', 'Meghraj Mulchand Burad', 'D.K.Shivakumar', 'P.Chidambaram','Raghav Agarwal','Vijay Chandrakant Trivedi', 'H.B.Chaturvedi', Bail/Anticipatory Bail were granted in the facts and circumstances of those respective cases. In the case of 'Sapna Jain' ad-interim relief not to take coercive action was continued. In the case of 'Neelkamal Realtors' action of compelling the petitioners to pay (by reversing the Cenvat Credit Available) an amount of Rs. 11.25 crore to the revenue before issue of show-cause notice, was challenged. 11. There is no duality of opinion that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. The court must take into consideration the settled principles of law while deciding the bail application. The same are, 1. Whether there is prima facie case or reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed the offence, 2. Nature and gravity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 of Section 69 is of crucial importance because the same is sine qua non for exercise of power to arrest by the commissioner. In the same case, there was no material showing that the principal additional director general had reasons to believe to order the arrest. 17. In the case of 'Nimmagadda Prasad', the Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 18. In the case of 'Amit Kumar Shukla V/s. Union Of India', before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the decision in the case of 'Daulat Mehta' was relied upon by the petitioner therein praying for bail contending that in the almost similar circumstances the court had granted bail. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Amit Kumar Shukla' distinguished the case of 'Daulat Mehta'. Considering the magnitude and the scale of the alleged fr....