TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the petitioner was earlier arrested in some proceedings and remained in custody for about 02 months and was granted interim bail vide order dated 23.01.2020 passed in CRM-M-2140-2020. Learned senior counsel has referred to the complaint (Annexure P-5), in which the petitioner was granted interim bail, to argue that the period relating to evasion/fraud, as alleged by the respondent authorities, was relating to September, 2017 to 2019. Learned senior counsel has further referred to para No.7 of the complaint, wherein, with regard to the investigation conducted so far, it is submitted that the petitioner being proprietor of M/s D.K. Enterprises and supplier of SS& Co. (M/s Jai Guru Traders), M/s Super Sales, M/s Jai International, M/s United India etc., has availed certain illegal benefits causing loss to the State exchequer. In para No.7.2, it is stated that said allegations pertain to the financial years, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. It is further submitted that after the petitioner was granted bail in the said complaint, the respondent authorities have again issued summons to the petitioner pertaining to same period, though it led to different transactions and in purs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions for offences. (ii) sub clause (i) of clause 2 of Article 323-B authorises legislature to make law for offences with respect to any matter specified in sub clause (a) to (h), whereas sub clause (j) authorises to make law with respect to any matter incidental to matters specified in sub clause (a) to (i), thereby establishing the power to legislate regarding the offences as not an incidental power. (iii) sub clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Article 35 empowers Parliament to prescribe punishment for those acts, which are declared offences under this part-III (fundamental rights). (iv) clause (b) of Article 369 empowers Parliament to make law with respect to offences against laws with respect to any of the matters mentioned in clause-(a). It is thus vehemently contended that the criminal trial for the offences under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017 as also the arrest under Section 69 are without jurisdiction, having no backing of the constitutional provisions. We find considerable force in the submissions raised and demonstrated by Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Notice of motion for 30.07.2020. Mr. Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrest. It is contended that under Section 69, the Commissioner has the power to order arrest where he has reasons to believe that such a person has committed the offence specified under Section 132 (a) to (d). The said offences are punishable under Subsection (1) (i) to (iv) of Section (1) and (2) of Section 132 the Act. It is, accordingly, submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 132, if the input tax credit of over Rs.5 crores has wrongly been availed or utilized, the offence would become cognizable and non-bailable under Section 132(5) and in such circumstances, the petitioner apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence, as the summons do not show the quantification of the amount which is to be investigated. Notice of motion for 05.10.2020. Mr. Bindlish puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent and submits that the amount is yet to be quantified and only the summons have been issued. It is submitted that in similar allegations, petitioner had already been arrested for the GST fraud at Gurugram. However, he has been released on interim bail on account of the COVID-2019 situation, as per the recommendations of the Committee set up on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., whether the anticipatory bail, in such circumstances, is maintainable or not and the Court finds that it is not possible to go through all the judgments through virtual hearing and the same will be considered on next hearing. In reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no explanation on behalf of the prosecuting agency as to why the petitioner is being repeatedly involved in different complaints pertaining to same period. It is further submitted that admitted facts are that the petitioner has purchased goods i.e. cigarettes on payment of applicable taxes and took Input Tax Credit (ITC) of paid tax at the time of purchasing of cigarettes and was utilizing it for the sale of cigarettes. The petitioner had sold the same to different entities, who directly or through other suppliers, sent the goods to exporters. The Govt. gets revenue as soon as ITC Ltd. i.e. manufacturer of cigarettes paid tax on supply of the cigarettes. It is also submitted that since the petitioner has not claimed any refund and the refund claimed by the exporters stands rejected by the department, the petitioner, while joining the investigation, can explain the entire things t....