TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned SPP has relied upon the decisions Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2013 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2013, Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat, Civil Application No.13679 of 2019 decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India, 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 185 (Telangana), Union of India Vs. Sapna Jain & Ors. SLP (Cri) No.4322­4324 of 2019 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.05.2019 and Amit Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (S.T.) No.9335 of 2021 decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 06.05.2021. 5. I have gone through the decisions cited by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 6. It reveals that the accused have made these applications for bail. 7. The learned Counsel for the accused no.1 and 2 argued that the accused are not liable and responsible for the alleged violations of provisions of law especially the applicants have not evaded any payment of tax. He further argued that summon issued on 08.10.2021 to both the accused in most mechanic manner by their appearance before the authority, which is bad in law. Further argued that the sched....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions alleged made by the client in books, if any, do not make him liable to allegations of fraud or misrepresentation as there is absolutely no evidence of his involvement in the business of client. He argued that the compliance issued on part of the accused was a minor clerical error which resulted in a delay in submission of the GST return of the client for the month of April, 2021. The said delay has no connection with the misrepresentation alleged by the GST Department. He argued that there is absolutely no reason to believe that accused was involved in any way with the said alleged offence. Further argued that it is not the case of prosecution that the firm of accused no.1 and 2 have collected GST and have not paid the same. There are no input/output credit claims by the firm of accused no.1 and 2. There is no supply of goods/service without an invoice in order to evade tax. There are numerous bills and against which the firm of accused has purchased and sold goods which is exempted under the Act. There is no malafide intentions of the accused no.1 and 2 to avail any GST benefit. Hence, there is no prima facie violation of the provisions of the law as alleged by the prosecutio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then no turnover in the successive months, to which they could not give any satisfactory answer. He argued that on being requested, the assessee called for sample sale invoices, purchase invoices, lorry receipts from their CA's office. The sample invoices were mentioning the address of M/s. SRK Ventures as "5th Floor, 507, Plot­CS­1487, Prasad Chambers, Tata Road No.2, Roxy Cinema, Opera House, Girgaon, Mumbai but neither any documents /records related to M/s. SRK Ventures nor any physical stock was available at the said premises. Thereafter, summons were issued to accused no.1 and 2 to appear on 08.10.2021 and their CA was summoned to appear on 09.10.2021 and statements of all accused were recorded under section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. He argued that accused no.1 in his statement admitted that he used to receive and issue fake invoices without actual movement of goods and accepted his liability amounting to Rs. 48.17 Crores. Accused no.3 in his statement admitted that M/s. SRK Ventures have evaded GST liability amounting to Rs. 48.17 Crores. Therefore, there were reasons to believe that the accused have committed an offence specified in section 132(1)(b) of CGST Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of 2019, Bombay High Court. 18. Shailesh Rajpal Vs. Commissioner, 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 336 (M.P.). 19. Himani Munjal Vs. Union of India, 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 608 (Raj). 20. Ajay Khanna Vs. State Tax Anti Evasion Bureau, Jabalpur, 2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 44 (M.P.). 21. Nilesh Yogesh Jagiwala Vs. The Superintendent, Criminal Application No.520 of 2020 - Bombay High Court. 22. Amit Beriwal Vs. State of Odisha - Orissa High Court. 23. Sr. Neeraj Karande Vs. The DGGI - Telangana High Court. 24. Bharat Raj Punj Vs. Commissioner of CGST -Rajasthan High Court. 25. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254. 26. Idrish Yusufbhai Malvasi Vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.18320 of 2020. 12. I have gone through all the case laws as cited by the applicants. There is no duality of opinion that jail is an exception and bail is a rule. It is settled principle of law while deciding the bail applications. Let us glance they are, 1. Whether there is prima facie case or justifiable grounds to believe that the accused had committed the offence, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t memo never contents the ground of arrest. It has to be explained to the accused and the applicants has also informed Smt. Mehta about the same. 16. I have gone through arrest memo at page nos.17 and 18 of both applicant nos.1 and 2. It reveals the date and time of arrest is 09.10.2021 at about 11.10 p.m., which is supported by the remand report in column no.4 with head note "arrest details". On this point, the learned Advocate for applicants placed reliance of Mr. Ugochukwi Solomon Ubabuko Vs. UOI, (NCB), The Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Sub Zone Goa, Porvorim, Goa. With due respect the facts of the case are not identical to the case in hand as the documents specially arrest memo, remand report and the voluntary statement of the applicants supports the claim of the prosecution that the arrest is proper by following the mandatory procedure of Section 57 of Cr.P.C. Act r/w. section 69 of CGST Act. 17. The learned Advocate for the applicant nos.1 and 2 submitted that as per CGST, Form GSTR­3B report see rule 61(5) of CGST, 2017 at page 122 he has not claimed any GST benefit. He brought cheque of certain amount and ready to pay immediately Rs. 1 crore in 2....