This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C in connection with arrest in notice no. CBIC-DIN- 20200863 WM 00001 FFF 2E dated 13.08.2020 under Sections 67 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is co-operating with the Revenue Department and submitted all the necessary information along with record. All the transactions made by the petitioner are valid. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is suffering from Neuro problem. During the course of arguments, counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Sri Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana vs. State (Criminal Petition No. 2419 of 2020) decided on 11.06.2020 and the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Manmohan Lalman Agarwal vs State of Gujarat (R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 21575 of 2019) decided on 31.01.2020.

Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the CGST Mr. Sandeep Pathak has submitted that during the course of search, proprietor of M/s Allied Enterprises, Mr. Wasim Qureshi-Petitioner was not available at the premises. It is further submitted that investigation conducted so far reveals that M/s Allied Enterprises has shown purchase of goods from M/s Jackson Enterprises valued at ₹ 27,65,69,486/- and on the said purchases, M/s Allied Enterprises has availed input tax credit amounting to ₹ 4,97,82,507/- which appears irregular. Further, M/s Allied Enterprises has shown purchase of goods valued at ₹ 1,03,86,150/- from M/s Sigma Enterprises and on the said so-called purchases, M/s Allied Enterprises has availed input tax credit amounting to ₹ 18,69,507/- which again appears irregular. So, prima-facie it appears that M/s Allied Enterprises has availed irregular input tax credit on the basis of invoices generated by the non-existing firms formed by the petitioner himself in the name of his employees. Petitioner has not appeared to tender his statement in response to the three summons issued to him. Further, a fresh summon was issued to the petitioner to appear on 11.09.2020 to tender his statement and to submit the remaining documents which the petitioner has not submitted till date. It is further submitted that petitioner has continuously evaded to join investigation till date.

Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

As per rejection bail order petitioner is proprietor of M/s Allied Enterprises and had purchased the goods amounting to about ₹ 32 Crore and got 4.97 Crore of input tax credit and the department is investigating the matter. If the petitioner is found to be correct, he should have to personally produce all the documents before the department and would also raise his grievance as to why he is not appearing before the department but he failed to clarify all these things.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for CGST and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it not proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.