JUDGMENT

Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ami Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.

2. This bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking bail in Complaint Case No.03 of 2022-23, arising out of Case File No: DGGI/INT/INTL/1387/2022, under Section 132 (1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2017') registered by the Department of D.G.G.I., Ghaziabad Unit, Ghaziabad.

3. As per prosecution case, a search was conducted on 11.11.2022 at the factory premises of M/s Vivek International (hereinafter referred to as 'firm') located at Plot No.81, Sector 59, Pragati Vihar, Industrial Area, Faridabad, Haryana. A search was also conducted at the residence of applicant Vivek Mishra on 11.11.2022. It is alleged that during search some incriminating records such as handwritten sales slips, dispatch registers of unaccounted sales, sales invoices, e-way bills were recovered and Panchnama was prepared by search team.

4. After analysis of the documents/records it was found that the firm has suppressed actual sales in their monthly GSTR-3B returns. The actual sales of M/s Vivek International is entirely different from the values shown in the GST returns for the period July, 2017 to September, 2022. It is found from the records that M/s Ganesh Battery Works, M/s Pressco Batteries and Inverters, M/s Supertech Trading Company are recipients of clandestine supply of M/s Vivek International. The statement of proprietor of M/s Vivek International Smt. Anusuiya Mishra was also recorded under Section 70 of the Act, 2017. After due scrutiny of the records, which was recovered from the premises of firm and residence of applicant, it was found that the total sale of firm was Rs.12.97 Crore as per GSTR-3B returns filed for the period of July, 2017 to September, 2017, whereas from the sales ledger recovered from the premises of firm the total sale for the aforesaid period was Rs.66.11 Crore and the firm had evaded GST of Rs.11.62 Crore by making clandestine supplies without issuance of invoices. The opposite parties had filed complaint to punish the applicant under Section 132 (1)(a) of the Act, 2017.

5. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that the applicant is neither owner nor proprietor of firm, whereas his mother Smt. Anusuiya Mishra is the proprietor of the firm. The firm is engaged in manufacturing of Lead Acid batteries which is being supplied and transfers by way of sale. The firm is engaged in purchase of raw materials and sale of finished product strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2017. The applicant was not involved directly in the sale and purchase of raw material on behalf of the firm.

6. It is further submitted that the officers of Department had erred in calculating the GST on the basis of record seized during search to the effect that the sale of finished products by the firm for the period July, 2017 to September, 2017 was to the tune of Rs.66.11 Crore whereas the taxable value of the sale shown by the firm in its return was only Rs.12.97 Crore.

7. It is further submitted that the investigation by the Department was complete