BharatTaxGST

Tejpal Singh vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence And Another

Original PDF →
CRM-M/64134/2023HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01164643202305 February 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT3 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
CRM M-64134 of 2023 2024:PHHC:016729 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 CRM M-64134 of 2023 Date of Decision: 05.02.2024 Tejpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Director General of G.S.T. Intelligence, 51D, D-Block, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant him a regular bail in complaint case No. COMA/49077/2023 dated 30.09.2023 titled as “Senior Intelligence Officer Vs. Tejpal Singh @ Teji etc.”, under Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is neither the proprietor nor the operator nor controller of the Firm M/s Eren Traders Ludhiana. Still further, none of the bank accounts or PAN number connected with the said Firm is in the name of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was an employee of co-accused Lovish Kapoor and has nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint. Learned counsel further contends that even the documents AMIT RANA 2024.02.07 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

CRM M-64134 of 2023 2024:PHHC:016729 -2- had been fabricated and manipulated, so as to involve the petitioner in the present case. Further, the petitioner never issued any bill to any party nor even handed over any bill to any person. Even, no payment was ever collected by the petitioner from any person nor any transfer was made by him from his account. Learned counsel further contends that even the documents, which have been made the main basis of the complaint, were legally inadmissible and the petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the present case. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is in custody in the present case since 09.08.2023 and his custody is no longer required by the complainant for any purpose. Learned counsel further contends that even all the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any further.

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was the part of the gang, which was engaged in operating a number of fake entities/firms. He further contends that during the course of inquiry by them, it had transpired that the Firm M/s Eren Traders had received total ITC of Rs. 8.96 Crores in its GSTR-2A from four suppliers, whose GST registration was already found to be cancelled. Out of this, it has availed ITC of Rs. 7.61 Crores in its GSTR-3B return and out of this AMIT RANA 2024.02.07 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

CRM M-64134 of 2023 2024:PHHC:016729 -3- much ITC, it had utilized Rs. 4.81 Crore towards its tax liability under GSTR-3B. Not only this, the said firm has also shown bogus sales of Rs. 37.92 Crores wherein it had passed ITC of Rs.6.79 Crore through GSTR-1 to 84 number of L-1 recipients/entities. Still further, the petitioner and his co-accused were operating number of fake firms including M/s Eren Traders.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 09.08.2023 and is in custody for the last about 06 months. Even though, the allegations levelled against the petitioner points towards the seriousness of the charge, however, the petitioner cannot be ordered to be incarcerated for an indefinite period. In fact, all the allegations levelled by the complainant are yet to be adjudicated by the trial Court during the course of trial and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.

9.

In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. 05.02.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AMIT RANA 2024.02.07 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.