Jharkhand High Court
Ajit Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 24 January, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 193 of 2020
Ajit Kumar Mishra ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Lal, Adv.
For the State : Addl. P.P.
03 / 24.01.2020Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jharia P.S. Case no. 203 of 2019 registered under sections 419/420/ 406/467/468/471/34 of IPC and Sections 132 1(b) (c) (e) of Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner- who claims to the owner of M/s. Shriram Coal Trading has furnished a false address as no such coal trading company was found existing on the given address. It is further alleged that the petitioner was registered under GST Act as Coal and Coke Traders and during the period of October, 2018 to December, 2018, though he showed the sale of Rs. 8,92,70,529.75 but he has not shown as to how much tax has been paid by him during the said period, as he did not submit the GSTR-3B. On verification of the Auto populated GSTR-2A for the year 2018-19 of the petitioner, it was found that Rs. 4,70,09,589.00/- has been shown therein and it was found that in the year 2017-18, in the months of August, 2017 to March, 2018, GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 have been submitted showing zero but in November,2017, the Auto populated GSTR-2A has been submitted showing Rs. 2,07,506.80. Similarly, in the month of April, 2018 to September, 2018, the GSTR-3B has been shown as 21,33,46,200/- and first, second and third Quarters GSTR-1 shows a sale of Rs. 9,14,03,991.75. In the months of October, 2018 to December, 2018 the purchase as per GSTR-01 has been shown as 8,92,70,529.75/- but during the said period, the GSTR-3B regarding payment of tax has not been submitted and on verification, of the relevant bank account of the petitioner with the State Bank of India, Jharia Bazar, Jharia, as has been mentioned in the tax payers details, it was found that in the financial year 2017-18, in the months of August, 2017 to March, 2018 and from April, 2018 to February, 2019, the bank transactions are nil. So, it alleged that as without bank transactions, the petitioner could not have made purchase and sale; hence he has cheated by such fraudulent acts. It is then alleged that after inspection, the differential amount of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B calculated was Rs. 8,92,70,529.75, GSTDRC-07 for Rs. 1,51,72,687/- was issued which included tax, interest and panel amount twice. It is next submitted that on verification of GSTR-2A, it was found that during the said period of April, 2018 to December, 2018 , a total purchase of Rs. 13,68,11,364/- has been found, out of which, purchase of the amount of Rs. 13,54,67,364/- was respectively from M/s Bharat Coal trading and M/s Janki Coal Trading , which is 99% of the total purchase and earlier also it was found that M/s Bharat Coal Trading without any receipt on the basis of GST Act, 2A, has taken input tax credit of crores of rupees; on the basis of forged sale with M/s Janki Coal Trading and M/s Sriram Coal Trading. So it is alleged that these three establishments on the basis of paper transactions, to evade tax indulged in circular trading, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons by misusing the input tax credit; without transportation of articles; merely on the basis of the paper transactions and taken input tax credit on the basis of invoice of other businessmen. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction of the prosecution has already been given by Commissioner as envisaged under section 134 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the amount of misappropriation of input tax credit running over several crores of rupees on the basis of the fraudulent circular trading without making any real sale or purchase, which is evident from the zero transactions of the bank account for the relevant period, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the involvement of the other co-accused persons in this case, hence it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner of cheating the Government of several crores of rupees by circular trading through paper transactions without doing any real business and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) AFR-Smita/-