Page 67 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] GOVIND AGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P. 553
was labour contractor of the Agarwal Industries. At the time of inspection, the
owner of the said flat Sri Indrapal was also contacted, who disclosed that the said
shop was taken by him on rent through one Dharmendra Gurjar son of Kali
Charan, resident of Malampur Bhind, M.P. Dharmendra Gurjar has disclosed
that he had taken the accommodation on rent at the instance of the Accountant
Manish at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month and that the rent was being realized
since 15-9-2018. Further, it was stated that Dharmendra Gurjar, who was Munim
in the firm who used to get Rs. 10,000/- per month salary. Further, he disclosed
that he did not know the owner of the firm namely, Govind Agarwal (applicant)
and that he was sent by Ram Niwas Gurjar of Bhind to work there, who runs
Pitambar Transport. The said shop was measuring 10 ft. x 12 ft. and had old locks
on it which had not been opened since long, right from the date the said shop
was taken on rent and that since then only one truck had been unloaded there
which contained 108 Gattas Panni Plastic which was received from Noida, Sector
57, which weighed about 30 kgs. The shop was found closed as locks were put on
it. When account books were demanded, it was told that bill parchas were with
the Accountant who had gone to Mathura. No account books could be found and
it was said that last time the consignment had been received a week ago. Two
persons were said to be working there. At the time of inspection, the owner of
the shop met the said Commissioner who was told that he had not entered into
written agreement nor had he given his shop to any person by the name of Go-
vind Agarwal running Govind Enterprises. He had given the said shop on rent to
one Dharmendra Gurjar only for a month but what does he do, he had no
knowledge and the shop was locked, keys of which is with the Accountant. At
the time of registration, the applicant had declared his saving bank Account No.
04672121008171 in Oriental Bank of [Commerce], village and post Auragabad,
District Mathura.
4. Further, on the said date the applicant had taken inward supply of
paper laminated foil, printed plastic laminated pouch, printed paper aluminium
etc. worth Rs. 35,02,28,642.00 while by way of outward supply only two e-way
bills were generated in favour of the seller of Rs. 1,64,334.00 of Motaz Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd. Bhind, M.P. GST No. 23AACCM8173H1ZG and Rs. 14,94,774.00 of
Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. GST No. is 9AACCM8173H1Z6. Further, it is men-
tioned in the FIR that despite such huge quantity having been purchased
through outward supply, no e-way bill was downloaded. In enquiry, it was
found that Govind Enterprises had supplied material worth Rs. 35,02,28,642.00
through 295 e-way bill as per rules which were supplied to the compa-
nies/traders. The bills of the applicant’s firm were generated from the address
given of Kanpur in the name of the supplier company/traders i.e. Motaz Enter-
prises Pvt. Ltd. (U.P.) and several other suppliers who have been named in the
FIR along with GST Registration number. During enquiry, it transpired that the
nature of account of the applicant’s firm was saving bank account which was
opened in Oriental Bank of Commerce, village and post Aurangabad, Mathura
which appeared Account No. 04672121008171. When the said account was en-
quired then it was found that the same was being run from 27-8-2009 and till 16-
11-2018 only Rs. 6448.00 were found available in that account and that between
27-8-2009 to 26-11-20018, the total amount deposited was shown as Rs.
3,73,389.00 and the whole outlet is shown worth Rs. 4,00,017.00. After enquiry of
this account, it has been concluded that the economic condition of the applicant’s
firm was extremely limited for last ten years and that such huge business could
not have been performed by him and that no big money transaction reflected
from the said account and therefore it was sufficient to hold that the applicant
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  67