B. Anandan VS Government of india

The petitioner in this case was arrested and placed in judicial custody on February 4th, 2021, under the accusation of committing an offence under Section 132(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Now, the petitioner is seeking bail from the court.

The petitioner, an Executive Director of M/s. Saraswathi Udyog India Ltd., was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on February 4, 2021, for allegedly committing an offense under section 132(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The allegation against the company is that it engaged in the supply of White Duplex Board without paying the due taxes to the Government. The prosecution claims that the company made taxable supplies amounting to 7.75 Crores from December 2018 to October 2019, and despite receiving payments from customers, inclusive of taxes totaling Rs. 93,01,57,694/-, it failed to remit the taxes to the Government. Despite being summoned, the petitioner allegedly did not respond, leading to the registration of the complaint.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the company had been regularly submitting returns and provided all accounts in response to the summons. However, the complaint was registered without proper consideration of this evidence. Additionally, it’s claimed that a sum of Rs. 5 Crores had been paid as input tax, which was allegedly not taken into account by the authorities.

In seeking bail, the petitioner contends that the arrest was unjustified, given the company’s compliance with submitting returns and providing accounts. Furthermore, they argue that the input tax paid should have been considered, suggesting that the complaint lacks proper examination of the evidence.

The case revolves around whether the petitioner, as an Executive Director, was aware or involved in the alleged tax evasion activities of the company. The petitioner asserts innocence and seeks bail while challenging the validity of the complaint and the basis for their arrest. The court will need to consider the evidence presented by both parties to determine the petitioner’s involvement and whether bail should be granted.

The petitioner, an Executive Director of M/s. Saraswathi Udyog India Ltd., was arrested on February 4, 2021, under Section 132(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for allegedly making outward supplies without paying due taxes. The company, engaged in the supply of White Duplex Board, was accused of evading taxes amounting to 7.75 Crores for the period from December 2018 to October 2019. Despite receiving payments from customers inclusive of taxes, the company allegedly failed to remit the taxes to the government. The petitioner contends that the company had been regularly submitting returns and producing accounts upon summons but was still prosecuted without proper consideration. The petitioner claims to have paid Rs. 5 Crores as input tax, not considered by the authorities, and asserts readiness to cooperate in providing all necessary documentation.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel argues that the company underwent financial difficulties leading to its takeover by financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act in 2018, and efforts were underway to revive the business. The petitioner’s arrest, it is claimed, occurred without following proper procedures. Reference is made to provisions under the Goods and Service Tax Act to assert that the petitioner’s liability does not warrant prosecution.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel contends that despite multiple summonses, the petitioner failed to appear for inquiries or produce records. It is emphasized that despite receiving approximately Rs. 93 Crores, the taxes were not remitted as required by law.

In summary, the petitioner seeks bail, arguing procedural irregularities and contesting the basis of prosecution, while the respondent maintains that the petitioner’s actions warrant legal action, given the alleged tax evasion and non-compliance with summonses.

The case involves a petitioner, an Executive Director of M/s.Saraswathi Udyog India Ltd., arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 4th February 2021 for an offense under section 132 (1) (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The accusation against the company is that it made outward supplies without paying due taxes to the government, amounting to approximately 7.75 Crores for the period from December 2018 to October 2019. The prosecution alleges that despite receiving payments from customers, inclusive of taxes, the company failed to remit the taxes to the government. The petitioner’s defense contends that the company had been submitting periodical returns and produced all accounts in response to summons. They argue that a sum of Rs. 5 Crores had been paid as input tax, which wasn’t considered, and the outward tax due as per the respondent is speculative. The petitioner expresses willingness to cooperate and produce all accounts for verification.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel highlights that the company’s business was taken over by financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act in 2018 due to substantial losses. They argue that the respondent’s arrest of the petitioner disregarded mandatory procedures. Additionally, they argue that the petitioner’s liability under the Goods and Service Tax Act is below the prosecutable value.

In contrast, the senior central government standing counsel for the respondent contends that despite three summonses, the petitioner failed to appear for the inquiry or produce records. They emphasize that despite receiving around Rs. 93 Crores, including tax components due to the government, the petitioner didn’t remit the taxes. The respondent expresses concern that releasing the petitioner on bail might result in evasion of tax liability and suggests imposing suitable security to mitigate potential losses to the government.

The court considers both arguments and reviews the available evidence. In a previous order dated 8th March 2021, the court granted the petitioner an opportunity to absolve himself of tax liability by producing accounts and evidence of tax payments to the government.

The case involves a petitioner who was arrested and detained under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for allegedly not paying taxes on outward supplies made by the company they are associated with, M/s. Saraswathi Udyog India Ltd. The petitioner, an Executive Director of the company, seeks bail.

The prosecution alleges that the company made taxable supplies amounting to 7.75 Crores from December 2018 to October 2019, receiving payments totaling Rs. 93,01,57,694, inclusive of taxes, without remitting the tax to the Government. Despite summons, the petitioner did not respond, leading to the registration of the complaint.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the company regularly submitted returns and provided accounts upon summons. They claim that Rs. 5 Crores had been paid as input tax, which was not considered, and the outward tax due amount was hypothetical. The petitioner expresses readiness to cooperate and produce all necessary documents for verification.

Furthermore, it’s contended that the company faced financial troubles, leading to its takeover by financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act in 2018. The petitioner alleges improper procedure in their arrest and highlights provisions under the Goods and Service Tax Act, arguing that the prosecution is unjustified.

In contrast, the respondent’s counsel asserts that despite three summonses, the petitioner failed to appear for the enquiry or produce records. They argue that despite receiving substantial payments, the taxes weren’t remitted, and releasing the petitioner on bail may lead to evasion of tax liability.

Considering both arguments and reviewing the available materials, the court initially granted interim bail to the petitioner to allow them to address their tax liability by producing accounts and evidence of tax payments. The bail was extended until further hearing dates.

During subsequent proceedings, the petitioner expressed willingness to provide immovable property as security against the tax due to the Government, with the respondent having no objections to bail granted on this basis. The petitioner filed an affidavit affirming this commitment.

Ultimately, the court considered the security provided by the petitioner and, with no objections from the respondent, granted bail, taking into account the petitioner’s undertaking to fulfill their tax obligations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: