2022 (7) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is supplier firms M/s Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vivrak Impex Pvt.Ltd., M/s V.R.Trading and M/s Shri Ram Trading, were found to be non existent at their registered places of business. However, out of these four companies, M/s Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Vivrak Impex Pvt.Ltd. and V.R.Trading were searched by the State GST Department on 24.11.2021, 26.11.2021 and 19.11.2021 and they were found operational and in existence at their respective registered addresses. With regard to M/s Shriram Trading whose registration is alleged to have been cancelled, nothing has been brought on record as to when it became non existent. Not even a single transporter of the goods/scrap from the supplier to the premises of the company has stated that it did not transport the goods. Applicant's company has record and photograph of each and every truck entering the factory along with toll receipts in order to avoid any pilferage or dispute. So, the goods were duly received and duly documented. Entire value of the goods along with GST in question has been paid by M/s Rajnandini to its supplier firm by proper banking channel. There is nothing on the file to suggest that applicant or his company is benefici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legations were of availment of ITC to the tune of Rs.22.42 Crore without actually receiving the goods, however the anticipatory bail was allowed noticing that an amount of Rs.2.5 Crore had already been deposited with the department. Tarun Jain Vs. DGGI B.A No.3771 and Crl.M.A No.16552/2021 decided on 26.11.2021 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, involving wrongfully utilizing ITC of Rs.72 Crores is also referred to submit that anticipatory bail was granted without deposit of 10% of the unadjudicated liability. Reliance has also been placed on Saurav Gupta Vs. CGST (Delhi East) B.A No.2815/2021 decided on 2.8.2021 wherein anticipatory bail has also been granted under section 132(1)(b) of GST Act, 2017 wherein the liability was of Rs.56 Crores. 6. On notice, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant department (hereinafter called the department). It is submitted that the averments made in the application are wrong. The investigation is pending and is at crucial stage. During investigation, it has come to the notice of the department that M/s Rajnandini, company of the applicant-accused had received goods invoices without actual supply of goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lies on which no GST has been actually paid to the Government. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that 'Socio economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach.' He has referred to state of Bihar & Another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 751. P.V.Ramana Reddy vs. UOI, CWP No.4764 of 2019 decided on 18.4.2019 (Telangana High Court); Sanjay Dhingra Vs. DGI Crl.M.No.50256/2019 decided on 23.1.2020 (P&H); Vikas Goyal Vs. DGGI, Crl.M No.18992/2019 decided on 24.7.2019 (P&H), Jatender Manro Vs. DGGI, Crl.M No.36714/2018 decided on 27.8.2019 (P&H), Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Deputy Director, DGGI, Crl.M.No.3972/2020 decided on 4.2.2020 (P&H); Malvinder Mohan Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi decided on 10.8.2020 (Delhi). 10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 11. Applicant-accused Hetram is seeking bail in connection with offence under section 132(1)(b)&(c) of GST Act, 2017 with the allegations against him that M/s Rajnandini, of which the applicant Hetram is Director, has fraudulently availed ITC to the extent of Rs. 77.02 Cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccepted, it is open for the petitioner to file appeal after the assessment order is passed; and as per the statutory stipulation, such appeal could be filed upon deposit of only 10% of the disputed liability. In that event, the deposit amount may not exceed Rs.2,00,00,000/-. (Rs.Two Crores) which the petitioner is willing to deposit within one week from today without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the assessment proceedings and the appeal to be filed thereafter, if required. Issue notice on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.Two Crores to the credit of C.No.IV/16/27/ 201HPU on the file of the Commissioner of GST and central Excise, Salem, Tamil Nadu and produce receipt in that behalf in the Registry of this Court within ten days from today, failing which the special leave petition shall stand dismissed for non-production without further reference to the court. Subject to the above, notice returnable within three weeks, Dasti, in addition, is permitted. For a period of one week, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in connection with the alleged offence and the interim protection will continue upon production of receipt in the Registry abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly be launched after determination of tax liability and the petitioner could be made liable to pay tax with penalty only after the said pre-condition of adjudication of tax liability was fulfilled...." 15. In Akhil Krishan Maggu & Anr. Vs. Deputy DGGI & Ors. CWP No.24195 of 2019 decided on 15.11.2019, Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court referred to the case of C.Pradeep (supra) and also P.V.Ramana Reddy(supra) and provisions of section 41 of the Cr.P.C has observed as under: "From the above quoted enunciations of law relating to arrest during investigation i.e. prior to determination of tax evaded under Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) as well CGST Act 2017 by different High Courts and interim order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that it is consistent opinion of Courts that power of arrest should be resorted in exceptional circumstances and with full circumspection. The maximum sentence prescribed under GST Act is 5 years and it is directly linked with quantum of evasion of tax. Prosecution of any person is directly linked with determination of evasion of tax because if there is no evasion of tax, there cannot be criminal liability. The determination o....