Page 72 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

438 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
4. Learned State/UT counsel, on the other hand, opposes the aforesaid
submissions. He submits that the petitioner not only cheated the Tax Authorities
but committed criminal offence as well, by forging bogus receipts. According to
him, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to elicit truth.
5. Having heard both the Learned Counsel, I am of the considered view
that the petitioner deserves concession of anticipatory bail. The allegations are
that the petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability.
All the documents are already in possession of the police. Whether the petitioner
had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as al-
leged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis-a-vis the
documentary evidence already seized.
6. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is or-
dered to be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety
bonds of local and sound surety, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magis-
trate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh, subject to his complying with provisions
contained in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. On his doing so, he shall join the investiga-
tion and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called to do so
and would cooperate in the investigation, failing which the State/UT is at liberty
to approach this Court seeking cancellation of protection granted to the petition-
er.

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 438 (Del.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
METRRO WASTE HANDLING PVT. LTD.
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPN.

W.P. (C) No. 12084 of 2016 & CM Appl. No. 47741 of 2016, decided on 12-5-2020
Garbage Removal Services to Municipality - Exempted service -
Deduction of Service Tax element from contract value - Sustainability - Afore-
said service has been an exempted service all along - In instant case, agreed
rate for garbage removal per vehicle was, inter alia, inclusive of Service Tax,
rate of which was not mentioned at all in contract - There was nothing in con-
tract that rates of services provided would vary on variation of Service Tax
element - Accordingly, if petitioners were providing exempted service on
which no Service Tax was payable, Municipality cannot justify deduction of
amount from contract value on account of non-payment of Service Tax - Simp-
ly because petitioners were not showing NIL Service Tax separately in invoice,
not meaning that quoted rate did not include its element - Also, Municipality
had been paying said amount to petitioner on such invoices all along before
issue was raised by Audit - Thus, both parties clearly understood terms of con-
tract - Since agreed rate was all inclusive, deduction of Service Tax element by
Municipality not sustainable - Reduction in contract value in subsequent con-
tract has no bearing on past contract - Municipality directed to release all
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  72