Case Title | Anup Dalmia, Nisha Dalmia vs The Superintendent of GST Cuddalore |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira |
Citation | 2022 (4) GSTPanacea 91 HC Madras Crl.O.P.No.7318 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 11–April-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Mr R.C.Paul Kanagaraj |
Council for Respondent | Mr N.P.Kumar |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira has held that enquiry for fake GST claim was in accordance with GST Act 2017. The petitioners are duty bound to appear before them.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners have claimed the benefits based on fake invoice received from the third parties. Hence for the purpose of enquiry, the respondent have summoned
the petitioners and third parties in accordance with Section 70 of the GST Act, 2017.Against the enquiry Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners during enquiry in connect on with the case.
The petitioners would submit that the 2nd petitioner is a Proprietrix of M/s.AKM Traders. 1st petitioner was orally summoned by the respondent to appear on 14.03.2022, accordingly, he appeared and explained the activities of the business, he was made to stay from 11.00 a.m., to 11.00 p.m., thereafter, he was asked to come again on 15.03.2022 and again he went to the office of the respondent, he was once again made to stay from 11.00 a.m., to 02.30 p.m., and at the end he was allowed to go with the instruction to appear again on 16.03.2022. On that day, he was made to stay from 11.00 a.m., to 08.00 p.m., and was compelled to pay Rs.72,49,580/- GST tax and repeatedly was summoned and made to wait inordinately in the respondent office.
Further 1st petitioner had submitted all the relevant records as claimed by the respondent and also all the account details were furnished. Whereas, the respondent is harassing and they have also directed the 2nd petitioner to appear before the respondent. He would also submit that the 2nd petitioner being a lady, apprehends great hardship and humiliation and the respondent have also exceeding their limits and trying to adopt 3rd degree method.
The respondent has also filed their counter, that petitioner has admitted the liability and furnished the details of availed total in-eligible ITC of Rs.72,49,580/- (CGST@9% – Rs.33,48,067/- (Approx.), SGST @9% – Rs.33,48,067/- (Approx.) & IGST @ 18% Rs.5,53,446/- (Approx.), on Inward supply of Total taxable value of Rs.4,02,75,441/-(Approx.), invoiced through fake invoices and other ineligible invoices. He undertook to reverse the same immediately with interest and penalty as applicable.
For confirmation of the payment and further facts & evidences, when 1st Petitioner was contacted on 24.03.2022, he came to the office on its own at about 12:30 Hrs, and promised to make complete payments by 25.03.2022 and will furnish a copy of payment challan & other proof by 14.00 Hrs. While awaiting their response, respondent have received a call from unknown no, introducing themself Advocate, Practicing in Hon’ble High Court of Madras and intimated about a petition filed by the Petitioner 1& 2 against them.
Further 1st Petitioner has never been asked to appear in the office on 14.03.2022& 15.03.2022. In fact, he has never been in the office on 14.03.2022, and also reason for his appearance on 15.03.2022 for mention above.
Further 1st Petitioner came to the office, either on its own will or being called for, came only after 12:00Hrs, which can be verified from the visitor’s book records says have made only 02 entries for the alleged period and also never made any entry for timing, while leaving the office building, with an intention to make allegation on the investigating officer. Also only one SUMMON dt. 16.03.2022 have been served upon the Petitioner No.2, but instead, Petitioner No.1 has appeared on 17.03.2022 under an authorization letter. No other SUMMON have been served to the Petitioner No.2. The Respondent submits that Petitioner1 & 2 doesn’t want to co-operate in the investigation proceeding and keeps on making false promises for making payment of self – calculated & admitted ineligible availment of GST liability as detailed above in the light of records available in this office. A2 who is running the business but failed to appear in the official proceedings, if required that too of grave nature within the purview of Acts & rules applicable. It is also submitted that Petitioner No.2 have never appeared in this office, so far.
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, . respondent finding materials regarding fake GST claims. For the purpose of investigation, the respondent have summoned the 1st petitioners and 2nd Petitioner (third parties) in accordance with Section 70 of the GST Act, 2017 and both petitioners are duty bound to appear before them. He would also reiterate that the respondent are not harassing the petitioners.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of by the petitioners concerned in accordance with and in the light of observation made above.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
As The Superintendent of GST Cuddalore, on finding materials regarding fake GST claims had summoned the petitioner for enquiry in accordance with Section 70 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioners are duty bound to appear before them. The enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures. The respondent shall not harass.
Download PDF
Anup Dalmia
For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court