The Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses Bail to person alleged of creating fake invoices and wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The allegations against the petitioner, Manoj Bansal relevant for disposal of the present petition are that M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sonepat is a manufacturer of Pure Lead Ingots and is registered with the GST Department. The petitioner is the Director in-charge of the said manufacturing Company and is thereby responsible for the conduct of the business of the same. M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. was alleged of having availed a hefty amount of Input Tax Credit on the basis of invoices issued by their suppliers, without any actual movement of goods. The said suppliers constitute 31 firms, as have been named in the present complaint. Upon investigation, it came to surface that the said supplier firms were not even in existence at their registered premises.
It was also uncovered during investigation that some of the transporters through whom goods were shown to have been conveyed, were also found to be non-existent and the transportation receipts of some transporters were recovered from the premises of M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. is alleged of having availed Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.15.44 crores on the basis of invoices issued by such non-existent/fake firms without movement of goods, alleged to have been transported by such fake/non- existent transporters, and on the basis of corresponding transport receipts being included in their record for claiming the said benefit. M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. was thereby alleged to have committed offences under Section 132 (1)(b) and (c) punishable under Section 132 (1)(I)(i) of the CGST Act.
The single judge bench of Justice Vikas Bahl noted that the petitioner has complied with the conditions as imposed in the detailed order vide which interim bail was granted to the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner had been in custody from 07.12.2020 till 16.03.2021 and that the challan has already been filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act have also been initiated and the case is primarily based on documentary evidence, thus, no purpose would be served in sending the petitioner back into custody.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
