GST authorities alleged that the applicant has availed input tax credit

Post credit to Advocate Bharat Raichandani

Cases Covered:

Neha Agrawal and Anr.  versus The Commissioner of CGST and Central

Facts of the cases:

The applicant is engaged in trading of goods. GST authorities alleged that the applicant has availed input tax credit of over Rs.9 without receipt of goods. The registration of the suppliers was canceled retrospectively. The Revenue sought to arrest the applicant. It was argued that the same was a non-bailable and a cognizable offence in terms of Section 132 of the CGST Act.

Observation & Judgement of the Court:

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail for the following grounds:

(a) that the registration of one of the suppliers (to whom ITC of Rs.7.74 crores out of Rs.9 crores was attributable) was restored pursuant to an order of the Division Bench of the High Court; (b) that the said supplier whose registration was restored, was existent during the period the Applicants availed ITC even though the supplier’s registration was later cancelled retrospectively. It could not be said that ITC was availed from an entity whose registration had already been cancelled; (c) since ITC of Rs.7.74 (out of Rs.9 crores) crores became debatable, custodial interrogation was not warranted for further investigation; (d) that the Applicants had co-operated with the Investigating Officer considering that 7 statements of the Applicants were recorded and the relevant documents had already been provided to the GST Department; (e) distinguishes other orders passed by the Bombay High Court denying anticipatory bail as facts are distinguishable as other cases pertain to orders pertained to allegations of creation of fake entities.

Read & Download the Full Neha Agrawal and Anr.  versus The Commissioner of CGST and Central