2019 (3) TMI 486 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMI – Grant of regular bail – offence punishable under Section 132 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 – issuance of fake invoices to get input tax credit – main accused have not been arrested so far – Held that:- U/s. 69 of the GST Act, the Commissioner is having power to arrest if he has reasons to believe that a person has committed an offence specified in Clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the GST Act. Section 132(1) (a), (b) and (c) of GST Act define types of offences and according to which, whoever commits offence of supply of any goods or services without issue of any invoice or issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services of both or avails input tax credit using such invoice, shall be punished with imprisonment of term which may extend to 5 years and with fine, if the amount involved is more than ₹ 500 Lakhs.
–
In view of the statement of the petitioner reco
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ST in the entire country. They apprised that some suppliers are floating fake invoices/good less invoices/taking ITC without receiving the goods. After extensive data mining it revealed that the caucus is operating in different States including Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi, West Bengal, etc. The Commissioner, SGST ordered to conduct a joint operation involving officers of CGST and SGST. As per information collected so far, the present petitioner is proprietor of of Meena Traders, Mumbai. He has confessed in his statement that he met Jayesh Bhai in Mumbai who has now shifted to Ahmedabad. The petitioner demanded ₹ 2-3 Lakhs from him and he called him to Mumbai then he explained him about the GST registration and assured that he will earn ₹ 2-3 Lakhs within 2-3 months. Thereafter, he came to Mumbai with ₹ 3,000/- and met Jagdish Kanani, then they collected the papers for GST registration. After obtaining GST Registration number, he send the registration number to Jayesh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
9 and his statements were recorded u/s. 70 of the GST Act. He was confronted with evidence collected during the course of investigation. In his statement, he has disclosed all the information available with him and also admitted that he did not receive any goods physically nor he sold any goods and he did not submit any GST return. He is in contact with present petitioner – Mehul since 1994. 4. The petitioner was formally arrested on 10.1.2019 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Thereafter, he applied for regular bail u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has found that prima facie the petitioner has said to have committed offence not only u/s. 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of GST Act but also u/s. 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and accordingly rejected the application for grant of bail. Hence, the present petition u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. 5. Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has falsely been impl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
12) decided on 8.2.2017. The main accused have not been arrested so far, hence the bail application be rejected. 7. U/s. 69 of the GST Act, the Commissioner is having power to arrest if he has reasons to believe that a person has committed an offence specified in Clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the GST Act. Section 132(1) (a), (b) and (c) of GST Act define types of offences and according to which, whoever commits offence of supply of any goods or services without issue of any invoice or issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services of both or avails input tax credit using such invoice, shall be punished with imprisonment of term which may extend to 5 years and with fine, if the amount involved is more than ₹ 500 Lakhs. 8. In view of the statement of the petitioner recorded u/s. 70 of the GST Act and the fact that the main accused have not been arrested so far, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled fo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =