MAHAVEER PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 75 of 2018 (G.R. No. 1845 of 2018) registered under sections 120(B)/415/420/425/464/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 132(1)(b)/132(1)(c)/132(1)(e) and 132(1)(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

(3.) The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. Kanchan Alloys and Steels claimed to be situated at the address Lokenath Complex, Aditi-1A, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur transacted from there though in fact he did not transacted any business. It is further alleged that the petitioner at the time of obtaining registration certificate produced an agreement dated 01.04.2017 before the department purported to have been entered into between the petitioner and one Sanjeev Kumar but the said agreement was forged one which was entered into between the petitioner and the said Sanjeev Kumar in respect of a non-existent property and on the basis of the said forged agreement, registration certificate has been procured by the petitioner and the petitioner without any sale or purchase availed input tax credit on the basis of forged Invoice to the tune of Rs. 8,57,30,051.00/- in violation of Section 132 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is further alleged that without actual supply, on the basis of forged Invoice, Input Tax Credit SGST/CGST to the tune of RS. 4,69,04,942/- and IGST credit of Rs. 3,88,25,115/- was availed under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in violation of Section 132 of the said Act. The further allegation against the petitioner is that he was engaged in circular trading and through different Mobile numbers he was in contact with different businessmen. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation that on the basis of forged rent agreement in respect of a non-existent premises is false, in view of the fact that the petitioner had already vacated the premises in question by the time petitioner was contacted by the Revenue Officials during the course of inspection of the premises and the same was intimated by the petitioner to the concerned inspecting authority and as at the time of vacating the said flat by the petitioner there was dispute regarding illegal demand of excess amount by the flat owner-landlord from the petitioner, so the flat owner has falsely made statement that the petitioner never took the said flat on rent. It is next submitted that the petitioner closed down his business on April, 2018 and shifted himself permanently to the State of Rajasthan and the petitioner was in the process of making online application for cancellation of his Registration Certificate but before the said exercise was undertaken by the petitioner, inspection was already carried out in the business premises of the petitioner, which the petitioner has already left and vacated. It is next submitted that in view of the Special Act in the shape of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 the offence punishable under the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted to the present case. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner with oblique and mala fide motive just to harass the petitioner and also to restrain the petitioner from participating in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under section 73 and 74 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 pursuant to the inspection carried out by officials of the State Tax Department.