Page 45 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] SHAHZAD ALAM v. STATE OF U.P. 531
(petitioner No. 2) was also summoned. In his statement made to the Team, he
stated that he works on commission and that he has no firm registered in his
name though he stated that the room which was searched earlier was taken by
him on rent but no rent deed was prepared. However, he could not provide the
details as to since when the premises was taken on rent. It is alleged in the FIR
that the statement of Dilshad Malik (petitioner No. 2) was contrary to the records
as M/s. K.L. Enterprises was registered in his name and trade was also shown in
the name of the firm.
4. By narrating the facts noticed above, derived on the basis of the in-
spection/enquiry, conclusion was drawn that Dilshad Malik and Shahzad Alam
had set up bogus firms for the purpose of evading tax and had been preparing
false documents/invoices for that end and that Azad Malik had been working as
their Agent.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned
first information report, inter alia, on the following grounds :-
(a) that no firm/company whose rubber stamps were allegedly found
at the specified place made a complaint of utilizing their seals for
preparing bogus documents;
(b) that there is no specific allegation in respect of evasion of tax in any
specific transaction or movement of goods;
(c) that the recovery is not supported by any public witness; and
(d) that unless and until a specific finding is returned in respect of eva-
sion of GST, no offence can be said to be committed, as alleged in
the first information report.
6. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing the first in-
formation report by submitting that the allegations made in the impugned first
information report clearly spell out creation of bogus firms and fabrication of
false invoices. As to how these invoices have been utilized and to what extent tax
had been evaded is a matter of investigation and since the impugned first infor-
mation report discloses commission of cognizable offences, the prayer to quash
the first information report cannot be accepted.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the record
carefully.
8. The allegations in the impugned first information report are in re-
spect of getting bogus firms declared/registered under the GST Act and fabricat-
ing documents/invoices with a view to evade Tax. The impugned first infor-
mation report appears to have been lodged after scanning information available
at the GST Portal and information received from mobile squad in respect of sei-
zure of goods/vehicles without documents as also after gathering information
from search and seizure operation and the enquiry that ensued, which led to an
inference that the declared place of business was bogus. Rather, the place was
being used for the purpose of preparing false documents/invoices.
9. As to how those invoices have been utilized or were to be utilized
would be a matter of investigation. The FIR specifically alleges that information
was gathered not only from search and seizure operations but also on the basis of
explanation submitted by the suspects pursuant to the summons served upon
them. Whether search and seizure operation memorandums, in absence of public
witness, would have sufficient reliability is an issue to be examined at the stage
of trial and not at this stage.

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  45