Premprakash Laxminarayan Bansal vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the application for anticipatory bail was not made out. The Court noted that the response from the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, clearly stated that M/s. Bansal Traders had availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) against the invoices in question. Furthermore, the statements of the Warehouse Manager, the owner of the trucks, and the drivers prima facie indicated that the goods were delivered at the request of M/s. Bansal Traders to Sarfaraz's godown. Considering these facts and the evidence collected during the investigation, the Court had reason to believe that the goods were supplied by the complainant to the applicant. Therefore, the Court rejected the application for pre-arrest protection. The observations made were explicitly stated to be for the purpose of rejecting bail only and not to influence any other proceedings.

Facts

The applicant, Premprakash Laxminarayan Bansal, sought anticipatory bail in a crime registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered at the instance of Mahendra Pukhraj Parmar, owner of M/s. Esjaypee Mercantile Global Private Limited, a dry-fruit and spice trading company. The complainant alleged that the applicant, through his firm M/s. Bansal Traders, agreed to purchase large quantities of cloves and make payment within a few days of delivery. The complainant transferred 300 bags of cloves worth Rs. 74,21,619/- to the applicant's firm. The goods were delivered to co-accused Sarfaraz Jaliyawala's godown. The complainant did not receive payment, and after the applicant denied receiving the goods, the crime was registered on May 8, 2021. The applicant contended that fraudulent invoices were raised and he had not availed Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail in connection with the registered crime under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the allegations of non-payment for goods supplied. Contentions: Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant denied entering into any transaction with the complainant, denied availing Input Tax Credit (ITC), and claimed that fraudulent invoices were raised. He submitted a certificate from a Chartered Accountant stating that M/s. Bansal Traders had not availed CGST and SGST credit in GSTR-9 for FY 2019-20 from available credits in GSTR-2A. The applicant argued that custodial interrogation was not required as the prosecution relied on documentary evidence and that his presence could be secured by imposing conditions. Respondent (State): The State argued that statements from the Warehouse Keeper and relevant documents indicated that clove bags were transferred to M/s. Bansal Traders. The Warehouse Manager's statement showed that the applicant's son requested delivery of the bags. The owners of the transport vehicles confirmed their use for transporting the cloves to Sarfaraz's godown. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST, confirmed that M/s. Bansal Traders had availed ITC against the invoices issued by the complainant.