TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rth Steel Alloys, M/s.Jay Enterprises, and M/s.Dhanlaxmi Trading. It was discovered that the petitioner herein was managing and handling these three firms for the purpose of availing and passing on ITC and it is also revealed that major outward supply from these three firms converged to a fourth entity, M/s.Shri Ram Alloys (Level-4 Unit), where the petitioner worked as the Manager and a search operation was conducted on 11.08.2025 at the premises of all four units. Based on search, it was found that the petitioner managed three dummy firms (M/s.Parth Steel Alloys, M/s.Jay Enterprises, and M/s.Dhanlaxmi Trading) from the premises of M/s.Shri Ram Alloys. The proprietors of these three firms- Shri Narendra Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar, and Shri Subhash Ram were found to be labourers, staff and cooks working at M/s.Shri Ram Alloys. Further, voluntary statements were also recorded and revealed that the petitioner controlled all business operations, including the generation of invoices and e-way bills and all banking transactions, used the mobile app "Gimbooks" to generate fake invoices. Based on the statements recorded from the petitioner dated 11.08.2025 and 13.08.2025, it revealed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ognizable and non- bailable under Section 132 (5) of the said Act. He further submitted that voluntary statements were recorded from other firms revealed that this petitioner alone is handling all the operations including the generation of invoices and e-way bills, without any actual movement of goods. He further submitted that the main accused in this racket namely one Shri Ishwar Lal, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner is also absconding and investigation in this case is pending. He further submitted that the petitioner is a native of Rajasthan and does not have any residence in Coimbatore and if he is released on bail, there is a possibility of tampering the witness. He further submitted that in the Arrest Memo, there is a clerical error in mentioning the sections and wrong quoting of sections alone is not sufficient to enable the accused to seek bail and since the petitioner is arrested he shall seek bail only on merits. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the materials available on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been arrested and incarceration from 14.08.2025 after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the reason to believe, the Additional Director General has recorded in Para-2, his satisfaction that the petitioner herein has committed offence under Clause (a) of Sub Section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the same is covered in Clause (i) of Sub Section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. 8. The offences classified in Section 132 (i) (a), 132 (i) (b) and 132 (i) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 are distinctive and each section prescribe different types of offences. For better understanding Section 132 reads as follows: Section 132 - Punishment for certain offences. 1)[Whoever commits, or causes to commit and retain the benefits arising out of, any of the following offences], namely:- (a) supplies any goods or services or both without issue of any invoice, in violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, with the intention to evade tax; (b) issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax; [(c) avails input tax credit u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds one hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed two hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine; (iv) in cases where he commits or abets the commission of an offence specified in clause (f) or clause (g) or clause (j), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. (2) Where any person convicted of an offence under this section is again convicted of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. (3) The imprisonment referred to in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall, in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the Court, be for a term not less than six months. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Act, except the offences refer....