Muffazal Hakim Penwala vs. Superintendent And Anr
Held
The Court held that the alleged non-generation of e-way bills for invoices involving ITC of Rs. 4.97 crores, with only Rs. 0.18 crores of e-way bills generated, falls within the ambit of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, which categorizes offences involving amounts below Rs. 5 crores as bailable. Based on this finding and the respondent's statement acknowledging the bailable nature of the offence, the Court concluded that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The application was disposed of with the operative direction that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The Court also noted that this order would not preclude the respondents from initiating further action if any further involvement in evading e-way bills is discovered by the Department.
Facts
The petitioner, Muffazal Hakim Penwala, sought anticipatory bail in an application before the Bombay High Court. The respondent, Superintendent, Office of Commissioner, CGST and C.Ex., filed an affidavit detailing Input Tax Credit (ITC) accrued for the financial years 2017-18 and 2021-22. The affidavit indicated ITC of Rs. 6,32,97,614/- reflected in GSTR-2A. A deduction of Rs. 1,35,91,078/- was made for intra-state transactions below Rs. 1 lakh and inter-state transactions below Rs. 50,000/-, for which e-way bills were not required. The remaining amount for which e-way bills were allegedly not generated was Rs. 4,78,79,797/-.
Key Issues
1. Whether the alleged non-generation of e-way bills for invoices involving ITC of Rs. 4.97 crores, where only Rs. 0.18 crores worth of e-way bills were generated, constitutes an offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, that makes the applicant entitled to anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the amount involved in the alleged offence is below Rs. 5 crores, which, in terms of Section 132 of the CGST Act, makes the offence bailable. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. Respondent's Contention: The respondent stated that e-way bills were required for invoices involving ITC of Rs. 4.97 crores, but only Rs. 0.18 crores worth of e-way bills were generated. They conceded that the amount involved is below Rs. 5 crores, making the offence bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1/2 6 ABA 1195-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1195 of 2022 Muffazal Hakim Penwala .. Applicant Versus Superintendent, Office of Commissioner, CGST and C.Ex.and ors .. Respondents … Mr. Pankaj D. Jain with Tejashree R. Kamble i/b P.D. Jain & Co. for the applicant. Mr.Jitendra B. Mishra, SPP i/b Sangeeta Yadav for respondent no.
Mrs.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C:- 1 As per the earlier directions, the respondent has placed on record an affidavit sworn by the Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise, Belapur and has produced on record DJARM mandates. In the said affidavit, the ITC accrued has been shown in three tables and the table no.3 which give the comparative class of ITC Vs. E-Way bills for the financial year 2017-18, 2021-22, on the basis of the invoices as reflected in GSTR-2A, is recorded to be 6,32,97,614/-. Tilak
2/2 6 ABA 1
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.