2026 (8) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner Central GST VAIBHAV (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that M/s Meridian Steels and Infra Private Limited allegedly availed and utilized inadmissible Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs.17.13 Crores on the basis of invoices allegedly issued by non-existent entities, thereby causing loss of Government revenue. The applicant, being one of the Directors of the said company, has been summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with the ongoing investigation. It is alleged that the role of the applicant and other persons connected with the company is under investigation, and the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel, has already been arres....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to approximately Rs. 17.13 Crores pertains to disputed business transactions which are yet to be adjudicated under the provisions of the CGST Act, and no final determination of the alleged tax liability has attained finality. The arrest of the co-director, by itself, cannot be a ground for arresting the present applicant, as the role and necessity of custodial interrogation of each individual are required to be independently examined. Learned counsel submits that there is no allegation that the applicant has attempted to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or obstruct the investigation, and all relevant documentary and electronic material is already secured with the department. 5. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has thro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed and the investigation is still in progress. Learned counsel further submits that the co-director, Shri Jaideep Singh Chandel, has already been arrested in the same matter and that the custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary to ascertain the manner in which the alleged transactions were undertaken and to identify the persons involved. It is further submitted that the magnitude of the alleged tax evasion is substantial and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondent/department prays for rejection of the application. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the submissio....