Manoj Bansal Vs Deputy Director (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition under Section 528 of the BNS 2023 seeking quashing of complaint COMA-86-2021 dated 05.02.2021, titled Deputy Director Versus Manoj Bansal, filed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, along with all subsequent proceedings. The complaint was instituted against Manoj Bansal, a Director of M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. (M/s NIPL), alleging wrongful availment and utilisation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately Rs.15.44 crore on invoices issued by 31 alleged dummy/non-existent firms without actual supply of goods. The petitioner contended that M/s NIPL, being the registered person that allegedly availed the ITC, had not been arraigned as an accused. He further submitted that he was not himself a registered person under Section 2(94) of the CGST Act and could not be prosecuted for the company’s alleged availment of ITC in the absence of the company from the criminal proceedings.
The respondent stated that investigation had revealed fraudulent ITC availment by M/s NIPL and alleged that the petitioner, as its Director, was actively involved in the company’s operations and had orchestrated the transactions. It relied upon Section 137 of the CGST Act, contending that the petitioner could be prosecuted individually. The respondent also referred to a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 16.04.2021 issued to M/s NIPL under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which was stated to have been confirmed by an adjudicating authority on 16.01.2025. M/s NIPL had filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The respondent, however, conceded that it was M/s NIPL which had allegedly wrongly availed the ITC.
