The sessions court on Thursday reserved the order on the plea of the department of Central Goods and Services Tax moved against the order of the magistrate court granting bail to managing director and two top executives of Shemaroo Entrainment limited booked for allegedly evading payment of tax.
Atul Maru - Joint Managing Director of Shemaroo; Hiren Uday Gada - Chief Executive Officer and Director of Shemaroo and Amit Haria, Chief Financial Officer of Shemaroo, where arrested on September 6 last year for alleged evasion of GST worth Rs 133 crores.
The three were produced before the magistrate court the next day on September 7 last year. The department pleaded that the accused be sent to judicial custody as they are involved in serious tax evasion case. However, the magistrate held that the accused were not given grounds of arrest and immediately granted bail to the three accused. The department had hence challenged the said order before the sessions court.
On Thursday, the counsel for GST department SR Ketkar on Thursday argued that the order passed by the magistrate court rejecting their pleas to remand Maru and other office bearers and releasing them on bail only because the grounds of arrest were not stated in writing.
"The bogus entities were created and used for fraudulently availing GST credit. These firms had no actual business," Ketkar argued pointing out that the magistrate court failed to consider the case on merits.
Ketkar pointed out the statement of Maru and contended that in his statement, Maru had admitted having created these entities to inflate their turnover which helped them obtain credit facilities at low interest.
"When they were produced before the court the remand application was moved which had all the details of the case. Besides, the accused were explained the grounds of arrest orally. It has to be seen that the case was fresh just previous day the officer had conducted raids at the places and they were arrested soon thereafter. The accused were informed about the grounds of arrest," Ketkar argued adding that the magistrate court failed to consider the case in detail and took a narrow view that accused were not given grounds of arrest in writing.
The defence lawyers however, had objected the plea on the ground that the plea is not maintainable. Besides it was argued that the agency has already filed the chargesheet and the probe is over.
