A Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court rejected anticipatory bail on GST evasion case as there was repeated calling from the side of Rohul Amin, the petitioner in the present case to compromise matter.
The petitioner who is apprehending arrest under sections 120B/420/406/386/403/506 of IPC, is seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.M/s. NRI Group of Companies and M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals was the proprietorship firm of one Anjuman Kumar Sharma, who for expansion of his business in Assam, had provided the petitioner certain sum to start a brick klin industry on the land of the petitioner.
However, the petitioner had committed fraud by projecting himself to be the proprietor of the firm under the name and style of M/s. NRI Group of Companies and M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals and obtained GSTIN in his name and had prepared fake invoices to show as if he had sold bricks to the petitioner at Delhi and a sum of Rupees one crore was due from Anjuman Kumar Sharma.
The petitioner stated in the affidavit that (i) he was the proprietor of NRI Group of Companies; and Anjuman Kumar Sharma had helped him to set up the industry; and (iii) Anjuman Kumar Sharma procured huge quantity of bricks. Thus, it is submitted that it is absurd that Anjuman Kumar Sharma, being a co-owner would purchase bricks from his own firm.
The Court observed that the petitioner claims that he is the proprietor of M/s. NRI Group of Industries. However, no document is produced by the petitioner to show the same. Nonetheless, the Senior counsel for the informant has been able to demonstrate that the petitioner has been changing his stand.
The Court also observed that it cannot be ruled out that a proprietor of a firm cannot purchase goods from his own establishment. But if the bills are fraudulent, it can surely be investigated by the police, but it would be a matter of debate whether the police would be empowered to investigate regarding non-payment of GST.
The Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana while disallowing the anticipatory bail noted that “The informant has referred to mobile call screenshots to project that the petitioner had been repeatedly calling the informant and Anjuman Kumar Sharma to mount pressure to them to compromise the matter. This does amount to breach of the conditions on which interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the Court does not find this to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
