Delhi High court has rejected to cancel the summons with respect to the individual charged with making various bogus companies who are claiming for ITC in a bogus way. The court has seen that there must be a cause.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar rejected to cancel the summon on the basis of the investigation which is on an initial level and the current case consists of bogus of Rs 350 cr nearly and nearly 200 companies are engaged in doing the bogus ITC.
The investigation was performed at the office premises of the petitioner in which the documents concerning the companies of the applicant were captured. It was said that the person behind various bogus firms and a bigger fake ITC has been claimed in a bogus way.
Senior counsel for the petitioner commented that the quicker application raises problems concerning the case of the forum-hunting by Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of GST, Ghaziabad Regional unit who has engaged in misuse of the powers of arrest and other things and proceeds with the jurisdiction of the Court in Meerut when no cause of action originated in the expressed jurisdiction.
It is moreover expressed that the offences beneath the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) act are compoundable and are not severe in nature. The complete evidence present in the case is on the basis of the documents and hence the applicant’s custodial interrogation is not being needed.
But the counsel for the respondents or departments have requested that the investigation is on a beginning level and the allegations with respect to the applicant are severe in nature. The bogus case engaged is nearly Rs 350 cr and approximately 200 companies are engaged in putting the bogs ITC.
It is moreover specified that these companies are not only from Delhi but also belongs from Ghaziabad and Noida and the factory of the applicant is indeed situated in Ghaziabad, Hence the issue of the senior counsel for the applicant that the jurisdiction of Meerut has opted invalidly and has no grounds without any merit.
“Upender Singh, a bank official at ICICI Bank, Kamla Nagar has revealed in his statement that he had opened accounts for these 200 firms without physical verification at the behest of the petitioner and his father,” the department specified.
The court during rejecting the petitioner’s argument has specified that “as far as the relief prayed for by the senior counsel for the petitioner with regard to the audio/videography of the proceedings to be carried out by the respondents, in the presence of petitioner’s lawyer at a visible distance, beyond audible range, inter-alia, by way of installation of appropriate CCTV cameras, is concerned, the same is untenable in law as in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to raise any reasonable basis to apprehend coercion by the respondents herein against the petitioner.”
Counsel For The Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary with Advocate Arun Malik and Advocate Ria Khanna
Counsel For The Respondent: Advocate J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate Satish Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel Aditya Singhla with Advocate Yatharth Singh and Advocate Tejan Kapur
