The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail as the GST Registration was in the name of the proprietor of shop alleged of involvement in business of prohibited drugs.
As per prosecution case, on disclosure of Satnam Singh regarding source of obtaining prohibited drugs recovered from him, Deep Medicos at Delhi was raided. During raid 100 tablets of Lomotil and 375 tablets of Alprax were recovered from the shop, but petitioner could not produce any licence/permit or record to justify his entitlement to keep and sell these prohibited drugs recovered from his shop.
It has been stated in the status report that on inquiry it was found that business of the Deep Medicos was being run by Parma Nand Pandey, and Virender Singh had rented out his shop to Dayanand Pandey, the petitioner.
It has been further stated in the report that on verification of the documents in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Department of Drugs and Trade and Taxes, it was found that GST number which was in the name of Dayanand Pandey is the same GST number which has been mentioned in the bills of three medicines, which were issued by Whole Seller to Deep Medicos for supply of drugs and further the documents i.e PAN Card of Dayanand Pandey is also in the record of the aforesaid Department.
The petitioner stated that he was only helper in the shop till 2019 and he is neither owner of the shop nor licensee of the shop and, therefore, he is not liable for recovery of prohibited drugs from the shop concerned. Now, in this petition, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner-Dayanand Pandey is neither owner of the shop nor he was tenant of the shop and, further that, GST Number was got issued in his name by Virender Singh and account was also opened in his name at the time of issuing GST Number.
The Additional Advocate General has submitted that GST Number, Lease Deed of the shop are in the name of petitioner and Bank Account wherefrom numerous transactions have been made to the supplier of the medicines/drugs to various dealers of the medicines have been made, were/are in the name of petitioner and his involvement in the illegal business of supplying drugs is evident.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed that “Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for exercising discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
