JUDGMENT

Mr. Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

After being declined bail by the trial Court, petitioner before this Court seeks regular bail in a case bearing No.GST/PNP/02 of 2020 and Complaint No.252/2020 dated 24.12.2020 registered under Section 132 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017 and Central GST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017.

2. As per prosecution case, tax returns of the firm, M/s Emm Vee Trading Company, whose proprietor is the petitioner, were examined for the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. It was discovered that the turnover of the taxpayer, i.e., the alleged proprietor concern of the petitioner, during this period, displayed significant and abnormal fluctuations, which were not typical in the normal course of business. Petitioner-the accused had thus engaged in tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crore. Additionally, tax authorities noted that the firm was registered at a residential address in the city, with no additional place of business specified in its registration certificate. Business activities were indicated to have been conducted from the same residential location. However, during inquiries, local residents denied seeing any business activities, such as loading, unloading, or the movement of transport vehicles to and from the registered firm. Upon examining the e-way bills generated for the firm's inward and outward supplies, which showed a turnover of approximately Rs. 85.8 crore, it was revealed that these e-way bills had been issued by the firm, M/s Emm Vee Trading Company. However, when authorities investigated the actual movement of goods and obtained ownership details of the vehicles mentioned in the e-way bills from registration authorities, it emerged that the owners of these vehicles denied any association with the firm or its owner, the petitioner-accused. They stated that they had never transported or supplied any goods as indicated in the respective e-way bills. Furthermore, ownership details of vehicles listed in the e-way bills for inward supplies and purchases by the firm were obtained from the transport authority, and statements from some vehicle owners were recorded. These statements also confirmed their lack of familiarity with the firm or its proprietor.

2.1. The tax involved in the invoices, with a taxable value of Rs. 88 crore, amounted to approximately Rs. 5.57 crore. However, no actual supply of goods had occurred. Thus, the firm, M/s Emm Vee Trading Company, whose proprietor is the petitioner, has violated the provisions of Sub Clauses (b) & (c) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 132 of the Act. Demand notice of Rs. 13.96 crore was raised against the proprietorship unit of the petitioner-accused under Section 74 for violating the provisions of the Act. FIR was also registered and the petitioner-accused was arrested from Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) on 29.10.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against petitioner, as per complaint, are that petitioner on the introduction of GST migrated to GST regime and during 2018-19 and 2019-20 made turnover of Rs.88 crore, whereas, petitioner neither received nor supplied goods as shown in invoices.

3.1. He contends that petitioner was neither originator of invoices nor ultimate user/beneficiary of invoices. The actual user of invoices are beneficiaries thereof . Thus evasion of tax has taken place at the end of buyers and not at the end of petitioner. Complainant has neither implicated suppliers nor buyers of the petitioner though role of the petitioner is very limited. Actual culprits have been let free, whereas petitioner who worked for small amount of commission, has been implicated and made a scapegoat being an easy target. Different documents of the petitioner were allegedly used to create the firm, but he is not proprietor of the firm. Just to save others, entire liability has been wrongly fastened upon the petitioner. Petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation as complaint has already been fil