2022 (6) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(hereinafter referred to as CGST Act). 2. Case of the respondent/Department is that the applicant is proprietor of M/s.Noor Timber. Department received information that the applicant has engaged himself into availment and utilisation of ineligible Input Tax Credit(ITC) on the basis of fake invoices issued in the name of or by several fake/non-existent firms to the tune of Rs.10 Crores. Accordingly, investigation started. On 26/11/2021, officer of the respondent visited the business place of the applicant. At that time, he did not provide any documents. Thereafter, he was called on 03/12/2021. However, he was absent. Again, he was called on 08/12/2021 and at that time, his statement was recorded. Initially applicant did not disclose or admi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. There is no concrete incident brought on record that applicant has tampered or threatened to the witnesses. He placed his reliance on the judgment pased by our Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Daulat Samirmal Mehta V/s. Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. Writ Petition No.471 of 2021(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), order dt.15th February 2021. He requested to enlarge the applicant on bail on any terms and conditions. 4. On the contrary, learned SPP Natrajan for respondent No.1 opposed the application. He argued that investigation is still in progress. Suppliers of the applicant are found to be fake/non existent. In the investigation conducted by the respondent on the basis ....