TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1052
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at many of the L-2 suppliers of the said firm had 'NIL' inward supplies on the E-waybill portal, however they had made huge outward supplies. In the absence of in-ward supplies, the outward supplies made by these suppliers seemed suspicious. The details of the L-2 Suppliers M/s Star Scrap Trading Company (GSTIN-07HBFPM4269G1ZC) which are found to have-Nil- Inward supplies and huge outward supplies as per E-Way Bill Portal. Further, analysis of the records of M/s. Star Scrap Trading Company reveals that its L-1 suppliers were involved in avalling and passing on of ineligible ITC on the strength of fake invoices issued without actual supply of goods. Thereafter, search under Section 67(2) CGST Act was conducted inter alia at the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07ANOPI7379F1ZI) were found to be non-existent at their respective registered principal place of business. Thereafter, summons under Section 70 CGST Act were issued to inter alia the accused Iftikar Malik, Harmeet Singh Gujral and Rajan Parmar for 12.10.2023. The accused Iftikar Malik, in his voluntary statement dated 12- 13.10.2023 recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, has admitted to have availed ineligible ITC as per EWaybill Analytics Portal worth Rs. 5,38,81,4431/- which was availed from various firms namely M/s DY Enterprises, (GSTIN-07GXGPP7422G1Z7), M/s ALI TRADING AND CO. (GSTIN- 07AJGPN1555L1ZY), M/s Golden Trading (GSTIN-07ANOP17379F1ZI) without actual supply of goods which led to wrongful availment and utilization of input ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of GST evaded is more than Rs. 5 Crores. Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in this matter. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that mandatory Section 41 A CrPC has not been followed in this matter by the department and the applicant has been arrested just after summons u/s 70 CGST Act. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that in present case the department is alleging ineligible availaing of ITC to the tune of Rs. 5,38,81,443/- while ITC offences upto the level of 5 crore are bailable offences. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that entities MK Trading Company, Malik Junk Merchant, Hitachi Trading Company are outside the jurisdiction of CGST Wes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lam Special Leave to Appeal (crl.) No. 6834 of 2019 3. P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 04.12.2019 4. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2014) 8 Suprme Court cases 273 5. Akhil Krishan Maggu Vs. Deputy Dir., DG of GST Intelligence 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7785 Ld. SPP for CGST argued that applicant has availed the ITC of Rs. 5,38,81,443/- and during analysis of record of M/s Star Scrap Trading Company it was revealed that L1 suppliers were involved in availing and passing of ineligible ITC on fake invoices without actual supply of goods, the applicant was operating MK Trading company, Malik Junk Merchant and Hitachi Trading Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing and Co.) and Anish Kumar (G. R. Enterises) who are active on GST portal and even filed the GST in October 2023, they allegedly supplied the articles to the applicant but the same fact has not been verified by the department. In the order of Akhil Krishan Maggu (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court that: 10. Taking cue from judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Make My Trip (Supra) followed by Madras High Court in the case of Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd (Supra), law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) as well keeping in mind Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a habitual offender and applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation when the custodial interrogation of applicant was not sought by the department and applicant was sent to judicial custody directly on 14.10.2023, the offence falls within preview of Section 41 A CrPC having punishment of 5 years but no notice u/s 41 A CrPC has been given, therefore, in view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present applicant Iftikar Malik is admitted to bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount and subject to the satisfaction of Ld. MM/Ld. Link MM/Ld. Duty MM with following conditions:- 1. he will provide his mobile number to the IO. 2. he will keep his mobile....