In the instant case, the petitioners are praying for anticipatory bail, in response to the notices issued by the respondents-Department, just in the shape of demand in form GST DRC-01A with an advice to pay the amount of tax, as the petitioners have liability of paying tax of more than Rs. 36.00 crores, which they are evading on the basis of certain fake documents. Application is accordingly dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017—Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioners prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to them in the proceedings initiated by the respondents, in pursuance of the inspection conducted on 24.06.2021 and consequential summons issued by the respondents under Section 70. It is alleged that the petitioners have availed input tax credit on the strength of tax invoices issued from some suspicious firms of Delhi. The respondent counsel argued that while verifying the movement/inward supplies of the goods, shown by the petitioners, from suspicious tax payers of Delhi, statements of the vehicle owners were recorded and they have denied to have supplied any goods to the petitioners’ firms. It is further submitted that at the time of physical verification, while conducting the search proceedings, even no stock of any good, which was the inward supply from the suspicious tax payer, was found at the premises. The court found no merit in both these petitions.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed these petitions.
In the instant case, the petitioners are praying for anticipatory bail, in response to the notices issued by the respondents-Department, just in the shape of demand in form GST DRC-01A with an advice to pay the amount of tax, as the petitioners have liability of paying tax of more than Rs. 36.00 crores, which they are evading on the basis of certain fake documents. Application is accordingly dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017—Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioners prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to them in the proceedings initiated by the respondents, in pursuance of the inspection conducted on 24.06.2021 and consequential summons issued by the respondents under Section 70. It is alleged that the petitioners have availed input tax credit on the strength of tax invoices issued from some suspicious firms of Delhi. The respondent counsel argued that while verifying the movement/inward supplies of the goods, shown by the petitioners, from suspicious tax payers of Delhi, statements of the vehicle owners were recorded and they have denied to have supplied any goods to the petitioners’ firms. It is further submitted that at the time of physical verification, while conducting the search proceedings, even no stock of any good, which was the inward supply from the suspicious tax payer, was found at the premises. The court found no merit in both these petitions.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed these petitions.