Page 69 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5
P. 69

2020 ]                GOVIND AGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P.                555
               have been purchased from Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Noida and when survey
               was done of the said company, it came to light that production was being done
               of high  quality printing packing material by  Motaz Enterprises  Pvt. Ltd. It is
               worth noting that the applicant’s firm had purchased through e-way bills from
               Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Bhind, M.P., GST No. 09ZAACCM8173H1Z6 and the
               said printed  packing material was to  the tune of  Rs.  17,55,80,481.00 The  said
               packing material was being used by the  production companies, therefore, the
               same was not worth being sold in open market and it made absolutely clear that
               the firm of the applicant, in collusion with others, was involved in tax evasion
               activities and hence an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of
               IPC and SGST/CGST Act have been committed by him.
                       5.  Submission made by the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that in
               spite of allegedly tax evasion, till date, no case has been made out under the U.P.
               Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules 2017 or under Central Goods and Services
               Tax Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017. Further without deciding as to whether the ap-
               plicant had evaded tax or not, lodging of FIR was improper that the applicant
               had contravened the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of IPC.
               The FIR has been lodged on 30-11-2018 while the contravention of the provision
               of the said section is said to have been made on 27-9-2018 which is highly belated
               without any proper explanation. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely
               implicated. He has apprehension of his arrest. If released on bail he would not
               misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.
                       6.  By filing supplementary affidavit, Learned Counsel for the applicant
               has drawn the attention to the rent deed executed between Mahavir Singh and
               the applicant which is annexed at pages 6-7 of the S.A. relating to one office in
               front of Anaj Mandi Gate No. 1, NH-2, 1st Floor, Kosi Kalan area 12 ft x 16 ft giv-
               en on rent to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month for a period of 11
               months. He has also drawn attention towards the pages 8-9 of the said supple-
               mentary affidavit which is an agreement to take property on rent executed be-
               tween Indrapal Yadav  and the  applicant’s firm through  applicant by which
               House No. 101, Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar is shown to have been given on rent at
               the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant. He has also drawn attention to
               pages 12 to 36 which are being stated to be the papers pertaining to GST amount.
               He has drawn attention towards pages 46 onward which are stated to be the GST
               return filed  by the applicant’s firm and on the basis of the documentary evi-
               dence, he has stated that no amount of tax evasion has been assessed by the
               prosecution side and yet FIR has been lodged which is illegal and in such situa-
               tion he needs to be granted anticipatory bail.
                       7.  The Additional Session Court 11 has erroneously dismissed the an-
               ticipatory bail application  of the applicant vide order dated 18-10-2019, which
               needs to be set aside. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Ra-
               dheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, 2011 (266) E.L.T. 294 (S.C.) in which reli-
               ance has been placed on para Nos. 43 and 46 which are quoted hereinbelow :
                       “43.  We find substance in the submission of Mr. Sharan. There may ap-
                       pear to be some conflict between the views in the case of Standard Chartered
                       Bank (supra) and L.R. Melwani (supra) holding that adjudication proceeding
                       and criminal proceeding are two independent proceedings and both can go
                       on simultaneously and finding in the adjudication proceeding is not bind-
                       ing on the criminal proceeding and the judgments of this Court in the case
                       of  Uttam Chand (supra),  G.L. Didwania (supra) and  K.C. Builders (supra)
                       wherein this Court had taken a view that when there is categorical finding
                       in the adjudication proceeding exonerating the person which is binding and
                                     GST LAW TIMES      30th April 2020      69
   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74