Fraudulent Business activities and claim of Fake ITC: Orissa HC orders to furnish Bank Guarantee on non-appearance of driver of Seized Vehicle

Fraudulent - Business - activities - Fake - ITC - Orissa - HC - Bank - Guarantee - Seized - Vehicle - TAXSCAN

The Orissa High Court ordered to furnish bank guarantee on non-appearance of the driver of the seized vehicle with regard to fraudulent business activities and claiming fake Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Petitioner in the present matter is Manish Kumar Jaiswal.

Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for CT & GST has received the instruction that the vehicle was intercepted. Verification from the portal discrepancies noticed which needed further verification. Therefore, the statement of the driver was recorded in Form-GST MOV-01 and was directed to station the vehicle at office premises vide Form-GST-MOV-02.

The Instruction also mentioned that on further verification from the portal revealed that the consigner is engaged in fraudulent business activities and claiming fake ITC. Therefore, detention notice in Form GST MOV-06 was served on the driver directing him to station the vehicle at office premises.

No reply to the show cause notice was furnished by any persons. Therefore an order of demand was issued to the driver in Form-GST-MOV-09 raising demand of Rs. 9 lakhs under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act.

Till date no person has come forward against the show cause notice or to pay the penalty as demanded and the show cause notice stated that the conveyance can be released on payment of penalty as per the demand order or after furnishing bank guarantee of equal amount.

UC Behura, Counsel for the petitioner undertook that the petitioner shall furnish the bank guarantee of equal amount within a period of two days, so that the authority can release the vehicle. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bank guarantee, it will be open to the opposite parties to confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner.

The Bench of Justices BR Sarangi and MS Raman observed that “In view of the instruction received, it appears that the petitioner has not approached the authority, even though the authorities have expressed their view that the conveyance can be released on payment of penalty as per the demand order or after furnishing the bank guarantee of equal amount.”

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader