TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST portal, the main business of the firm was "supply of all kind of scrap". The Excise and Taxation Inspector submitted his reports on 14.02.19 and 25.01.19 that there was no business activity from the business premises i.e. Plot No. 160, Vill. Khuda Jassu, UT, Chandigarh in respect of above said company. During the period of registration, tax payer made the transaction of payable taxable supplies of goods to the tune of Rs. 21,68,92,963/- and was liable to deposit the due tax in Govt. Treasury. During enquiry, alleged person Anuradha joined the enquiry in which she stated that her mother Smt. Veena Sharma had expired on 11.08.2010 supported by death certificate. (3). During further verification, it also came on record that the Rent Agreement at the time of obtaining registration was executed on 08.06.2018 between Smt. Veena Sharma as landlady and Ms. Anuradha as tenant is a fake document which was submitted for obtaining GSTIN Number. Besides, one Ishwar Chand Garg joined the enquiry in which he stated that he was working as a manager with M/S A K Trading Company at Sarangpur, Chandigarh and was looking after all the sale and purchase of all types of scrap metals. Further Anura....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing fake e-way bills, the accused including the present petitioner would not allow the legal/white money trail to be traced back to them and such transactions would be done in cash and the only evidence, regarding the dealings of the co-accused inter se can be derived from the digital data of the co-accused Vinay Jain @ Vicky, the FSL report regarding the same is still awaited. (8). Ms. Vasundhara, learned APP UT Chandigarh further argued that the petitioner is the one who conceptualized the idea of forming the fake and non-existent M/s AK Trading and all its activities of making fake e-way bills were carried out under the overall supervision of the petitioner and the said company was shown to be procuring bogus purchase invoices from other firms of co-accused Vicky Jain amongst others. She further averred the prosecution has gather sufficient documentary evidence during preliminary inquiry to infer that the modus operandi of the petitioner was that he along with other co-accused in collusion with their fake firms had been obtaining bogus invoices of sale and purchase of goods and then claiming false Input Tax Credit from the Taxation Department and that there was no physical mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against the accused lest such confessions are supported and corroborated by cogent evidence which may prima facie point towards involvement of the petitioner (14). Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is of invocation of provisions of law. The case cynosures evasion of tax which led to registration of FIR against Anuradha d/o Abhinash, proprietor of M/s AK Trading Co. by obtaining fake registration under UT GST Act, CGST Act and IGST Act by means of fraud and suppression of facts. (15). A number of chapters/sections of the CGST Act, 2017 require compliances by the registered taxable persons and in some cases even by persons not registered under this Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of these sections may lead to imposition of penalties/fines and prosecution under this act. Chapter III involving Sections 7 to 11 of CGST Act provide for levy and collection of tax; Chapter V provides for provisions relating to availing of input tax credit; Chapter VI obliges the taxable person(s) to get themselves registered under the GST laws; Chapter VII provides for rules relating to issue of tax invoices, debit notes and credit notes; Chapter VIII obliges the registered taxabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e prosecuted under IPC without waiting or following the procedure under the MMDR Act. (19). In the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Vimal Kumar Surana and another, (2011) 1 SCC 534, the Apex Court has elaborately dealt with the provision under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. In that case, the respondent, who passed the Chartered Accountant examination but was not a member of the appellant's Institute of Chartered Accounts, allegedly represented before the Income Tax Department and the authorities constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Trade Tax Act on the basis of power of attorney or as legal representative and submitted documents such as audit reports and certificates required to be issued by the Chartered Accountants by preparing forged seals and thereby impersonated himself as Chartered Accountant. He was accordingly prosecuted and charge was framed against him under Sections 419, 468, 471 and 472, IPC. The respondent challenged the order by filing revision under Section 397 CrPC The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the case to the trial court with a direction to decide whether there are sufficient grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore whom the respondent is alleged to have acted on the basis of power of attorney or as legal representative or produced audit report do not fall within the ambit of the term "court" as defined in Section 195(3) CrPC. Such officer/authorities were neither discharging the functions of a civil, revenue or criminal court nor could they be treated as tribunal constituted by or under the Central or State Act, which is declared to be a court for the purpose of Section 195." (20). In case of Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi AIR 2017 SC 150, the facts were different. It is the case in which the Magistrate had taken cognizance against the Director of a company for offences punishable under Sections 292 and 294 of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act. It was in such background, the Supreme Court was of the view that Section 67 read with Section 67A and 67B of the IT Act were a complete code and for the same set of allegations, the provisions of Section 292 of IPC cannot be invoked. (21). A close reading of the above cited case laws would lead to only one conclusion that the offence alleged against the petitioner is one punishable under the UTGST Act/CGST Act, which are the spe....