Case Law Details
DGGI V. Sriram Venkataraman (Patiala House Court)
Elaborate arguments have been addressed on behalf of the department and the applicant. The sumnum bonum of the arguments is that the applicant pleads that M/s Instakart Services Private Limited was itself duped by M/s MFPL and M/s STMPL whereas the Ld. Spl. PP claims that both the above entities are infact dumy entities and M/s Instakart is the key player behind the entire tax evasion.
Specific queries have been raised by this court on the following points:
1. Process for GST registration as infact M/s MFPL and M/s STMPL were issued valid registraton number (as claimed by the appliant and not disputed by the respondent department) and what action was exactly initiated by the department to ensure that the said entities are infact fake entities including action, if any, against the delinquent employees involved in issuance of registration numbers to fake entities.
2. What is the incriminating material available on record against M/s Instakart to rule out the possibility that M/s Instakart was duped by M/s MFPL and M/s STMPL?
3. Whether the matter has been reported to ED as prima facie offence under PMLA also appears to have been committed in the instant matter.
Ld. Spl. PP accordingly seeks a short adjournment to satisfy the judicial conscience of this court upon the aforesaid aspects.
At the request of Ld. SPP, put up for remaining arguments in the matter on 13.01.2021.
Furthermore, the department is also directed to file its comprehensive reply by way of an affidavit through a competent officer in terms of order of hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Mohd. Danish v. State (NCT of Delhi) Bail Application no. 3550/2020 (D.O.D 26.11.2020). Any sensitive information, which is likely to affect the future course of investigation may be shared in a sealed.
Till then, no coercive measures be taken against the applicant.
Copy of the order be given dasti.
