The applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of alleged fraudulent inward ITC. Commissioner has wrongly and illegally granted authorization/sanction in exercise of power under Section 132(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 without applying his mind.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail ---The applicant submitted that he was summoned under Section 70 for recording his statement and after recording his statement he was illegally arrested, shifting the responsibility of Proprietor on his shoulder. The proprietor was neither arrested nor has been made accused in the present case. The opposite party in order to make the alleged offence non bailable, enhanced the amount of alleged fraudulent inward ITC from Rs. 4.76 Crores to Rs. 5.19 Crores. The applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of alleged fraudulent inward ITC, which was availed by firm for which only proprietor can be said to be main beneficiary, who has not been made accused in the present case. The respondent counsel sought time for submitting reply that why proprietor has not been made accused when he is the main beneficiary in the matter
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court put up the case as fresh on 15.04.2021.
The applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of alleged fraudulent inward ITC. Commissioner has wrongly and illegally granted authorization/sanction in exercise of power under Section 132(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 without applying his mind.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail ---The applicant submitted that he was summoned under Section 70 for recording his statement and after recording his statement he was illegally arrested, shifting the responsibility of Proprietor on his shoulder. The proprietor was neither arrested nor has been made accused in the present case. The opposite party in order to make the alleged offence non bailable, enhanced the amount of alleged fraudulent inward ITC from Rs. 4.76 Crores to Rs. 5.19 Crores. The applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of alleged fraudulent inward ITC, which was availed by firm for which only proprietor can be said to be main beneficiary, who has not been made accused in the present case. The respondent counsel sought time for submitting reply that why proprietor has not been made accused when he is the main beneficiary in the matter
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court put up the case as fresh on 15.04.2021.