Cri. Bail Appln. No.421 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK AT – NASHIK.

Criminal Bail Application. No.421 of 2022 CNR No. MHNS010015072022

1.Ajjimullah Naim Choudhary
Age : 41 years, Occu. : Business

2.Hafijullah Ajjimullah Choudhary
Age : 26 years, Occu. : Business

3.Attaaulha Mohammad Naim Choudhary
Age : 30 years, Occu. : Business
All R/o : Flat No.1, Vastuslya, Abimanyu Apartment, Ambad Link Road, Nashik­ 422010. … Applicants.

V/S

State of Maharashtra Through : Superintendent C.G.S.T., Nashik Commissionerate, G.S.T. Bhavan, Plot No.155, Sector P­34, CDCO, Nashik­ 422008. … Respondent.

Appearance : Ld. Adv. Shri. Shri. B. K. Mishra for Applicants.

Ld. Spl. P.P. Shri. Shashikant Dalvi for Respondent.

ORDER BELOW EXH. N0.1
(Delivered on 05th April, 2022)

1.This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. apprehending the arrest, as the Applicant Nos.1 & 2 had received the summons dated 28.02.2022 and 15.03.2022 respectively to appear before respondent on 07.03.2022 and 22.03.2022 respectively.

2.It is the case of the applicants that, applicant No.1 is the proprietor of M/s Maharashtra Steel Traders, applicant No.2 is the proprietor of M/s Hira Steel and applicant No.3 is looking after business and affairs of M/s Gauri Ispat and M/s Tej Steel.

3.The applicant No.3 was arrested by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, G.S.T. Bhavan, Mumbai and he was granted bail by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. It was alleged that fake purchase invoices were accepted by three Firms i.e. M/s Gauri Ispat, M/s Tej Steel and M/s Gajanan Enterprises, which was operated by applicant No.3 and the applicant No.3 was involved into fake purchases and availed input tax credit to the tune of Rs.18.91 Crore.

4.Now, the respondent have initiated an inquiry and had issued the summons to appear before them with the documents. The applicants apprehend that, they may be arrested. The applicants have co­operated the respondent and submitted the documents. The respondent had visited applicant’s Office and prepared panchanama.

Therefore, prayed to allow the application.

5.In response to the notice, the respondent appeared and filed their say vide Exh.6 and strongly objected by saying that applicant No.3 is the mastermind and in the inquiry by respondent with applicant Nos.1 and 2, they have revealed that for the illegal work done by applicant No.3, he was arrested. During the inquiry, the respondent revealed that M/s Hira Steel and M/s Maharashtra Steel Traders had availed fresh input tax credit in their GSTR­3B Return filed for the months of September­2021 to December­ 2021 and utilized it for reversal of fake ITC availed on the invoices issued by M/s Gauri Ispat. In the investigation, it revealed that fake purchases and invoices have been shown and also bogus Firms have been created. Therefore, custodial interrogation of these applicants is necessary. Therefore, prayed to reject the application.

6.Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicants and Ld. Spl. P.P. for the respondent. Gone through the entire material placed on record and so also the authority. The authority relied by Ld. Advocate for applicants i.e. “Anuj Mahesh Gupta v/s Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, GST Bhavan, Mumbai & Another in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.4775 of 2021”.

7.Upon hearing and going through the material placed on record, what can be gathered is that the allegations against the applicants are that, they had fraudulently availed input tax credit to the tune of crores of rupees by issuing fake invoices to fictitious Firms without supplying any goods. The respondent is investigating the said matter. The applicants are not responding to the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provides for an inquiry of Civil nature. From the arguments of Ld. Spl. P.P., it reflects that the inquiry is of Civil nature and yet they had not arrived at a conclusion whether the offices are made out or not. Be as it is, the fact is that the respondent is investigating the matter, which is serious in nature causing loss to the Government and therefore this Court finds that, the custodial interrogation of these applicants is necessary with respondent to confronted those documents to them and investigate in that line. Therefore, this Court
finds that, the discretion of pre­arrest bail can not be granted in favour of the applicants.

8.As far as authority relied by Ld. Advocate for applicants is concern, it is under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and not under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it has no application to the case in hand. In the result, application fails. Hence, the order.

O R D E R

Criminal Bail Application No.421/2022 stands rejected and disposed off accordingly.

Digitally signed by MUSHTAQUE MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN SHAIKH HUSSAIN SHAIKH Date: 2022.04.06 Place : Nashik. (M. H. Shaikh) 18:25:35 +0530 Date : 05/04/2022 Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.