The Revenue Department submitted that there was sufficient basis to conclude that the applicant, Govind Agarwal, was either working in collusion with some unknown firm/person or was working as an agent and in collusion with some person as thus has given effect to tax evasion. As per the FIR, the accused had obtained GST Registration through GST Portal for the business of packing material. At the time of obtaining the registration by the applicant, he had shown his address as the main business place as the first floor, N.H. in front of Anaj Mandi Gate No.1, Kosi Kalan. When an inquiry was conducted by this fact came to light that on the given address no board of the firm was affixed and the said place had a room on the first floor measuring 18 ft. x 20 ft. only.
The owner of the house Mahavir Singh disclosed that he had given the said accommodation to the applicant on rent and its registration was also got done by him by the name of Govind Enterprise and that he was an advocate also in the firm. In the said room, no documents/books related to the firm were found except one computer and a laptop and printer were kept in which Sri Mahavir Singh disclosed that they did not have any data relating to Govind Enterprise and also stated that there were several forms related to his advocacy. At the time of the raid, two persons were found working on the computer who disclosed that they were working in respect of the accountancy of the said advocate and that there was no place/go-down to keep stock. The entire work of Govind Enterprise used to be done from its Kanpur located branch/go- down and that all the related books of account were kept at the branch located at Kanpur.
The counsel for the applicant contended that because no proper notice has been served upon the applicant demanding an outstanding amount of GST, therefore, there was no necessity of the accused being arrested. A legal notice was required to be served upon the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of GST but instead of that FIR has been lodged based on which the applicant is apprehending imminent arrest which had necessitated him to move this anticipatory bail in the bogus firm application seeking protection from this Court.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh while denying the anticipatory bail observed, “Looking to the aforesaid fact, taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant, Govind Agarwalon anticipatory bail in this case.”Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment