Case Law Details
B. Anandan Vs Government of India (Madras High Court)
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 4.2.2021 for the offence punishable u/s 132 (1) (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The petitioner is an Executive Director of M/s.Saraswathi Udyog India Ltd., which company is engaged in the supply of White Duplex Board. The allegation against the company is that it was making outward supplies without paying the taxes that are due to the Government. It is the case of the prosecution that investigation revealed that supplies were made by the company, which were taxable to the extent of 7.75 Crores for the period from December, 2018 to October, 2019 and the bank statement of the company also showed that the company received payment from its customers to the tune of Rs.93,01,57,694/-, inclusive of taxes, but failed to remit the tax to the Government. Inspite of issue of summons, the petitioner did not respond, which resulted in the complaint being registered for an offence as stated above.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the company had been submitting periodical returns and in response to the summons, all the accounts were also produced by the company, yet without adverting properly to the same, the complaint has been registered. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.5 Crores had been paid by way of input tax, which was not taken into account by the respondent and that the amount of outward tax due, shown by the respondent is hypothetical. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the respondent and produce all the accounts for verification.
4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the business of the company was taken over by the financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act in the year 2018, due to the huge losses sustained and that the company is taking steps for reviving the company and without following the mandatory procedure, the respondent has arrested the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the various provisions under the Goods and Service Tax Act and submitted that the liability of the petitioner is below the value, which necessitates prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly unsustainable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
