Moti Sah Alias Moti Shaw vs. The State Of Jharkhand
Held
The Court noted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was never physically present during the GST registration process. The Court also took into consideration that the petitioner had remained in custody for one year and two months. While the judgment mentions Section 134 of the GST Act concerning the prerequisite of sanction for taking cognizance, it does not explicitly rule on whether such sanction was obtained or not. However, the Court's decision to grant bail appears to be primarily based on the admitted fact of the petitioner's absence during registration and the period of custody. The Court directed the petitioner's release on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties.
Facts
The petitioner, Moti Sah @ Moti Shaw, is an accused in Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 351 of 2018. The allegation is that M/s Saha Enterprises, a firm registered on the basis of forged documents, was found to be non-existent. This firm allegedly encashed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 24.46 crores. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner was never physically present for the GST registration, a fact allegedly substantiated by the counter affidavit. It is further alleged that Sandeep Khawala presented himself, and after migration from VAT to GST, no GST returns were filed. The petitioner has been in custody since September 28, 2018.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court can take cognizance of the offense under the GST Act without obtaining sanction from the Commissioner, as required by Section 134 of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that Section 134 of the GST Act mandates obtaining sanction from the Commissioner as a prerequisite for taking cognizance, and this sanction was not obtained. The petitioner also contended that the maximum punishment under the GST Act is five years, and they have already been in custody for over a year. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments on this point, but the Court considered the objections filed by the learned A.P.P.
Sections Cited
Section 134
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2278 of 2019
---- Moti Sah @ Moti Shaw.
....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand.
Vishal Lakra
.....Opposite Parties
---- Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------- For the Petitioner
: Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate
: Mr. Nilanjan Sen, Advocate
: Mr. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate For the State
: APP.
----- 16/28.11.2019 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 351 of 2018, G.R. No. 955 of 2018. It has been alleged that M/s Saha Enterprises had taken registration on the basis of various documents and the said Firm was found to be non- existent. It has been alleged that Input Tax Credit of Rs.24.46 crores was encashed by the said Firm.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for registration under GST, a person must be physically present but it is an admitted fact that he was never present. Learned counsel while referring to the counter affidavit has stated that the fact about the absence is further substantiated at par
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.