Shamim Akhtar Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
The petitioner sought regular bail in Complaint No. 210 of 2021 dated 27.06.2022, registered under Sections 132(1)(A) and 132(1)(I) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Gurugram. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were unfounded because no cash or Agriculture Grade Urea was recovered from the petitioner. It was further contended that the petitioner’s arrest on 26.04.2022 violated statutory provisions of the CGST Act, as adjudication and assessment of tax liability had not yet commenced.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the case rested entirely on the alleged statement of Manoj Kumar, who reportedly claimed to have supplied Agriculture Grade Urea to M/s Saba Chemicals Wood Products, Yamuna Nagar. However, Manoj Kumar was not cited as a prosecution witness, and therefore his alleged statement lacked evidentiary weight. Counsel argued that the department wrongly assumed, without supporting material, that 1 kg of Urea resulted in the manufacture of 60.33 kg of Resin and that the alleged supply of 26,081 bags of Urea to M/s Saba Chemicals Wood Products implied unaccounted cash sales of Resin without tax invoices, resulting in a supposed GST evasion of Rs. 22,30,51,232/–.
