Case Law Details
Shailesh Rajpal Vs Commissioner (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Learned counsels for the Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax, Jabalpur opposed the prayer and submitted that though the last date to file annual return of GST for the year 2017-18 is 30/11/2019 and for the year 2018-19 is 31/12/19. However, a taxpayer has to declare their tax liability for a month in GST return GSTR-1 by 10th day of the subsequent month and has to pay liability so declared in return GSTR-3 B and the due date for payment of GST liability of a month is the 20th day of the subsequent month. The annual return is an opportunity extended by the government to rectify inadvertent mistakes that may have crept in monthly Returns. While in the instant case even after knowing his tax liability the applicant has deliberately suppressed their turnover to evade the GST amount collected by him from his clients. Turnover of the applicant in respect of his company M/s Sai Sun Outsourcing Services Private Limited during the period July 2017 to March 2018 was Rs. 51,57,01,823/- but he disclosed only Rs. 10,80,11,848/- in his GST returns. Similarly, during the financial year, 201819 turnover of the applicant was Rs. 174,26,61,455/- but he has declared only Rs.79,01,25,667/- in his GST returns. Similarly, the applicant has completely suppressed the turnover of his proprietary firm M/s Sai Sun and has neither filed any GST return nor made any payment. Applicant by way of suppressing turnover pocketed the GST amount collected by him from their clients. Total recoverable amount from the applicant and one of his firm M/s Sai Sun Outsourcing Services Private Limited is Rs. 62,08,48,907.
He further submitted that exact GST liability of the company M/s Sai Sun Outsourcing Services Private Limited and M/s Sai Sun Private Limited has to be determined for the period 2019-20. For that, investigation is going on. Some other companies namely M/s Seven Eye IT Solutions Private Limited, M/s Happiest Job Consultants Limited etc. were also found to be operated from the same premises. Liability of service tax, and GST of these firms, also needs to be determined. The applicant has the history of forgery and submission of fake documents to the public authorities. If the applicant is released on bail, he may affect the investigation. So, he should not be released on bail.
Looking to the alleged huge tax evasion by the applicant and the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent and keeping in view that the investigation is going on and apprehensions of applicant tampering with the evidence can not be ruled out. So, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Hence, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
