MURSALEEN TYAGI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court had in this case recorded by its order, the petitioner accused had agreed to deposit 10% of the amount allegedly claimed as Wrongful ITC Credit (Rs.70.00Lakhs constituting 10% of Rs.7.00 Crores). This was the basis of criminal proceedings against him. The High Court affirmed that order and consequently the condition - (requiring deposit of 10% of the said alleged amount claimed as wrongful credit). This Court had issued notice on 30/1/2023 and directed that the petitioner ought not to be arrested. The record would reveal that the respondent had been given time to file counter affidavit.

(2.) Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of second respondent again requested for some time. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the previous opportunities granted and the circumstance that the petitioner had enjoyed liberty for the last 9 months or so, the request for further extension of time is not reasonable. It is, accordingly rejected.

(3.) The basis for the FIR in this case was alleged claim for wrongful ITC - which the revenue alleged was to the extent about Rs.12.00 Crores. That appears to be a matter of adjudication which is to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, through the adjudicatory process. There is no information forth coming as the fate of those proceedings - whether show cause notice was issued and, if so, what is the result thereof. The counter affidavit of the revenue, filed before the High Court is a part of the record. It reiterates the contents of the complaint and the alleged wrongful credit claimed by the petitioner.