Case Law Details

Case Name : Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Supreet Singh Bakshi (Patiala House Courts)
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/07/2019
Related Assessment Year :

Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Supreet Singh Bakshi (Patiala House Courts)

In the case in hand, applicant / accused is stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Swift Enterprises, whereas, his father and brother are stated to be the Directors of M/s. Megabyte I.T. Pvt. Ltd. and his employee Rakesh Kumar Gupta is stated to be the proprietor of firm namely M/s. I.T. Solution. The applicant/ accused is stated to be managing entire affairs of all the three firms and IO has mentioned in his reply that by way of circular movement of invoices by way of fictitious sales without actual supply of goods, input tax credit (ITC) to the tune of more than Rs. 20 crores has been wrongfully availed by the applicant/ accused causing loss to the government exchequer. During arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel did not argue that any goods were actually supplied vide invoices vide which input tax credit has been claimed by the applicant / accused. The evidence has been collected by the I0 showing that various invoices were issued (inter-se) by the abovesaid three firms and all the said three firms are allegely being manged by the applicant / accused. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature of allegations and the initial stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/ accused Supreet Singh Bakshi. Hence, bail application stands dismissed and disposed of.

Full Text of Order of Patiala House Court

Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Delhi West Vs. Supreet Singh Bakshi

U/s : 132 CGST Act

10.07.2019

Present: Sh. Harpreet Singh, Ld Standing Counsel alongwith Ms. Suhani Mathur, Ld counsel for the department.

Sh. Gagan Kumar, Ld counsel for the applicant/accused Surpreet Singh Bakshi.

IO Inspector Amar Singh in person.

The reply to the bail application filed.

Arguments on the bail application heard.

The facts in brief of the present case are that applicant / accused is involved in fraudulent evasion of taxes to the tune more than Rs. 20 Crore and he is involved in wrongful availing of the input tax credit by way of issuing invoices of three different firms. Whereas, he is sole key person looking after the affairs of all the said three firms and he got the invoices issued from the said three firms without actual supply of goods.

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused submitted that the accused is not involved in the commission of alleged offence and that his custodial interrogation is no more required. Ld. Counsel argued that so far as issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods is concerned the same can be looked after by the adjudicating authority during adjudication proceedings and Ld. Counsel submitted that accused joined the investigation upon the notice given by the IO and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in custody in the present case. Ld. Counsel submitted that accused is the sole bread earner of his family and his wife is suffering from ailments and considering the totality of facts and circumstances, he may be admitted to bail. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of case titled as Jayachandran Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Salem, (2019) 105 www.taxguru.in 245 (Madras).

Per contra, Ld. Senior Standing counsel as well as I0 submitted that during the investigation sufficient evidences are collected regarding wrongful availment of input tax credit and in the present case it was found that the accused was managing the affairs of all the three different firms/ companies viz. M/s. Swift Enterprises, M/s. Megabyte I.T. Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. I.T. Solution and by way of circular movement of invoices in the aforesaid firms, input tax credit to the tune of more than Rs. 20 Crore was wrongfully availed by the applicant/ accused. JO submitted that the investigation of this case is at initial stage and considering the gravity of offence, the applicant / accused may not be admitted to bail.

In the case in hand, applicant / accused is stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Swift Enterprises, whereas, his father and brother are stated to be the Directors of M/s. Megabyte I.T. Pvt. Ltd. and his employee Rakesh Kumar Gupta is stated to be the proprietor of firm namely M/s. I.T. Solution. The applicant/ accused is stated to be managing entire affairs of all the three firms and IO has mentioned in his reply that by way of circular movement of invoices by way of fictitious sales without actual supply of goods, input tax credit (ITC) to the tune of more than Rs. 20 crores has been wrongfully availed by the applicant/ accused causing loss to the government exchequer. During arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel did not argue that any goods were actually supplied vide invoices vide which input tax credit has been claimed by the applicant / accused. The evidence has been collected by the I0 showing that various invoices were issued (inter-se) by the abovesaid three firms and all the said three firms are allegely being manged by the applicant / accused. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature of allegations and the initial stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/ accused Supreet Singh Bakshi. Hence, bail application stands dismissed and disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti.

(Manish Khurana)
CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/10.07.2019

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *