WASIM QURESHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with arrest in notice no. CBIC-DIN-20200863 WM 00001 FFF 2E dtd. 13/8/2020 under Ss. 67 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is co-operating with the Revenue Department and submitted all the necessary information along with record. All the transactions made by the petitioner are valid. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is suffering from Neuro problem. During the course of arguments, counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Sri. Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana v. State (Criminal Petition No. 2419 of 2020) decided on 11/6/2020 and the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Manmohan Lalman Agarwal v. State of Gujarat (R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 21575 of 2019) decided on 31/1/2020. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the CGST Mr. Sandeep Pathak has submitted that during the course of search, proprietor of M/s. Allied Enterprises, Mr. Wasim Qureshi-Petitioner was not available at the premises. It is further submitted that investigation conducted so far reveals that M/s. Allied Enterprises has shown purchase of goods from M/s. Jackson Enterprises valued at Rs.27,65,69,486.00 and on the said purchases, M/s. Allied Enterprises has availed input tax credit amounting to Rs.4,97,82,507.00 which appears irregular. Further, M/s. Allied Enterprises has shown purchase of goods valued at Rs.1,03,86,150.00 from M/s. Sigma Enterprises and on the said so-called purchases, M/s. Allied Enterprises has availed input tax credit amounting to Rs.18,69,507.00 which again appears irregular. So, prima-facie it appears that M/s. Allied Enterprises has availed irregular input tax credit on the basis of invoices generated by the non-existing firms formed by the petitioner himself in the name of his employees. Petitioner has not appeared to tender his statement in response to the three summons issued to him. Further, a fresh summon was issued to the petitioner to appear on 11/9/2020 to tender his statement and to submit the remaining documents which the petitioner has not submitted till date. It is further submitted that petitioner has continuously evaded to join investigation till date. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.