Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka and Neeraj Jain Versus Union of India
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1745 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 185 (Cal.)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-7-2018
CRM 3327 of 2018 CRAN 1800 of 2018 With CRM 3328 of 2018 CRAN 1799 of 2018
GST
Shivakant Prasad, J.
\nMr. Sekhar Basu, Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar. for the petitioner.
\nMr. K. K. Maiti. for the Union of India.
\nThis is an application for relaxation and\/or modification and\/or waiver of conditions of bail vide order dated 9th July, 2018 passed by this Court in CRR 3327 of 2018 thereby enlarging the petitioner on bail in connection with Case No.C-216 of 2018 arising out of DGCEI F. No.29\/KZU\/KOL\/GR.D of 2018 dated 13th May, 2018 under Section 132(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 inter alia directing that the accused be released on bail on furnishing bond of the sum of Rs. 50 lakh and on condition to deposit Rs. 39 crore to the Government Exch<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n higher and the maximum amount not being less than Rs. 30,000\/- or 50% of the tax whichever is higher. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n gh the competent authority is modified to the extent that Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka the petitioner on condition shall deposit 50% of the evaded amount of Rs. 27 crore. Similarly, the petitioner Neeraj Jain would deposit Rs. 6 crore being the 50% of evaded amount of Rs. 12 crore as a condition to obtain bail. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka and Neeraj Jain Versus Union of IndiaGST2018 (7) TMI 1745 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 185 (Cal.)CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 12-7-2018CRM 3327 of 2018 CRAN 1800 of 2018 With CRM 3328 of 2018 CRAN 1799 of 2018 GSTShivakant Prasad, J. Mr. Sekhar Basu, Mr. Milon … Continue reading “Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka and Neeraj Jain Versus Union of India”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12874","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12874\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nMr. K. K. Maiti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India invites my attention to the provision of Section 49 of the Act which deals with payment of tax, interest, penalty and other amounts. My attention is also adverted to the provision as enshrined in Section 74 of the Act which provides for determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit rightly availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. My attention is also invited to the GST Law Manual relating to prosecution and compounding of the offences punishable under this Act relating to prosecution for certain criminal offences prescribed under Section 132 of CGST\/SGST Act, 2017.
\nThe provisions as shown to this to me are undoubtedly very very stringent nittigrity of laws of the provision in this Act. In rebuttal, Mr. Basu draws my at<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIt is also pointed out by Mr. Basu assisted by Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned senior advocate for the petitioners that in West Bengal, there is no surety having the strength to extant for surety of the petitioner to furnish bond of a sum of Rs. 50 lakh each. I am of the considered view that this condition of furnishing bond be modified to the sum of Rs. 10 lakh each which can be furnished by way of personal bond to be executed by the petitioners. Therefore, the order dated 9th July, 2018 is modified.
\nHowever, the order dated 9th July, 2018 be modified to the extent that the petitioners be enlarged on bail by furnishing personal recognition bond of Rs. 10 lakh each and on further condit<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n