- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
(2.) The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 06.02.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0350 of 2020 at P.S. Sihani Gate, District- Ghaziabad, under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. and section 122/132 of Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as GST Act).
(3.) The impugned first information report has been lodged by Commercial Tax Officer (Special Investigation Cell), Commercial Tax, Range A, Ghaziabad alleging that on scanning of information available at GST Portal and information received from the mobile squad of Commercial Tax Department regarding the vehicles seized with goods without proper documents, exercising power under Section 67 of the GST Act, the Joint Commissioner (Investigation), Trade Tax, Range A, Ghaziabad, by order dated 06.11.2019, constituted and authorized a team of officers to carry out search and seizure operations at declared places of business. It is alleged that when the team visited the declared place, it found that it was not functioning as a registered office of any firm; no business activity could be noticed; no goods were found; and the person present there, namely, Shubham Sharma, informed that the place was not being used for any business but only for preparing documents. Shubham Sharma informed the team that he works for Dilshad Malik (petitioner no.2). The electricity connection of the premises was found in the name of Shahzad Alam (petitioner no.1). In the room, tax invoices and E-way bills of 61 firms were found. In addition thereto, rubber stamps and seals of the Proprietor/Authorized signatory of 16 firms were found. A cheque book of Nirala Traders and Bilty Book of two transporters and original tax invoices of one Ravi Industries was found. Upon search of another room, one Abid was found, who disclosed that he works for Junaid Malik. In that premises, a bill and electricity bill was found which was in the name of Dilshad Malik. In that room, a rubber stamp/seal of the Proprietor of M/s. A.K. Metal Traders with a specified GST number was found. What was noticed was that none of the firms whose papers were found had the specified address as their place of business. Consequently, on the basis of information received, separate teams were constituted to make inspection of the firms whose documents were found there and, upon enquiry, majority of those firms were found non-existent. The place from where papers, rubber stamps and seals were recovered was discovered to be under the control of Shahzad Alam and Dilshad Malik (petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2, respectively). On the basis of above inspection/inquiry, a prima facie conclusion was drawn that Dilshad Malik and Shahzad Alam had been indulging in preparing and utilizing bogus tax invoices for evading tax. As a result, summons were issued under Section 70 of the GST Act seeking their explanation. On the basis of the explanation submitted, further enquiry was conducted by the Inspection Team, upon which, it was found that Shahzad Alam is a resident of New Islam Nagar, Meerut and the place which was earlier inspected has been in the name of Shahzad Alam which had been let out to Azad Malik (petitioner no.3). In his explanation, Shahzad Alam stated that he carries no business from that specified place. The said explanation was not found correct because the Joint Team had found original papers of M/s. Capital Industries (GSTN number specified) whose proprietor was Shahzad Alam. It is stated in the FIR that Azad Malik was also interrogated. He stated that he had taken the place on rent from Shahzad Alam for keeping old generators and for selling spare parts. When he was enquired in respect of papers found there, he stated that he has no knowledge as to how those papers were found there. Later, however, he submitted a written submission claiming responsibility for the documents seized from the specified place and claiming that his earlier statement was made under some misconception. It is alleged that thereafter Dilshad Malik (petitioner no.2) was also summoned. In his statement made to the Team, he stated that he works on commission and that he has no firm registered in his name though he stated that the room which was searched earlier was taken by him on rent but no rent deed was prepared. However, he could not provide the details as to since when the premises was taken on rent. It is alleged in the FIR that the statement of Dilshad Malik (petitioner no.2) was contrary to the records as M/s. K.L. Enterprises was registered in his name and trade was also shown in the name of the firm.;