RAJESH JINDAL Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST DELHI (WEST)
GST
2019 (1) TMI 550 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 471 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-12-2018
BAIL APPLN. No. 3086/2018 & CRL. M. (BAIL) No. 2003/2018 & CRL. M. A. No. 50762/2018
GST
MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
Petitioner Through Mr. J. K. Mittal, Mrs. Vandana Mittal, Mr. Sumit Saurav and Mr. Ravi Rai, Advocates.
Respondent Through Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Suresh Chaudhary and Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocates
O R D E R
BAIL APPL. No. 3086/2018 & CRL.M.(BAIL) No. 2003/2018
Pursuant to the last order dated 24.12.2018, the respondent has presented before the Court counter-affidavit dated 28.12.2
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r however, the ground taken for cancellation of bail in the first application and the second application are discordant; the offence alleged against the petitioner is of tax evasion. The petitioner also says that under Section 132(4) and (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 mere evasion of tax is a non-cognizable and bailable offence;
(iii) that the sole ground for cancellation of the petitioner's bail is the impression given to the Sessions Court that the quantum of tax evasion involved is not Rs. 4.58 crores but Rs. 85 crores, which is false and baseless. In support of this the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the first bail cancellation application filed by the respondent where in para 5 the numbers '8' a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nerate fake tax invoices in order to fraudulently pass on input tax credit, without actually supplying material. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the names of the firms/companies mentioned by the said Deepak Taneja nowhere appear in the list of companies/firms through which the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in tax evasion/ wrongful availment or passing of input tax credit. Such statements, which are part of the record of the investigation which is still underway, have also been shown to the Court.
5. Upon a closer look at the figures inserted in para 5 referred to above, it appears to the Court that the figure so inserted in handwriting is not '85' but '8.5'. Whether the amount mentioned is Rs. 85 crore
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =