9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1286 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeeking grant of regular bail - input tax credit claimed on bogus billings during the assessment period of 2011-2012 - fraudulently obtaining refund by using false and fabricated documents - HELD THAT - It transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 29.05.2023 and has been granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) in one of the FIR s i.e. FIR No. 650 dated 24.10.2020 and this Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 657 dated 24.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) vide order dated 09.10.2023 passed in CRM-M-49998-2023. The Investigating Agency has already completed the investigation and filed the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. on 25.09.2023 and the trial has not made any progress as none of the 30 prosecution witnesses, as cited by the prosecution, has been examined so far. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012 (1) TMI 407 - SUPREME COURT , it has been held that pendency of any other criminal case against the accused cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail. The petitioner -Gopi Chand Chaudhary is ordered to released on regular bail in this case only, if not required in any other case, subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in a case involving FIR No. 653 dated 24.10.2020 registered under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sirsa District Sirsa. Summary: Issue 1: Allegations of obtaining refund through false and fabricated documents The FIR was lodged based on complaints by the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner regarding firms claiming input tax credit on bogus billings during the assessment period of 2011-2012. The petitioner, a dealer named M/s Jai Bhagwati Trading Co., was found involved in claiming bogus refund on account of input tax credit by using false and fabricated documents. The dealer obtained refunds by submitting forged documents without actual movement of goods, causing a revenue loss to the State Exchequer. The Special Refund Team's report highlighted discrepancies in the dealer's claims, leading to the registration of the FIR against the dealer. Issue 2: Grounds for seeking bail The petitioner, a retired Deputy Excise and Taxation Officer, argued that the prosecution's case is based on documentary evidence already possessed by the Investigating Agency. The petitioner contended that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code should not be invoked for availing refunds based on forged documents, as it falls under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about being involved in multiple FIRs on similar allegations, citing provisions of the Cr.P.C limiting the number of FIRs permissible. Issue 3: Bail considerations The State counsel opposed the bail plea, highlighting the petitioner's involvement in 21 cases, alleging connivance and significant revenue loss to the State Exchequer. However, the petitioner had been granted bail in a previous FIR, and the trial had not progressed despite the completion of the investigation. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that the pendency of other criminal cases should not be the sole ground to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted regular bail to the petitioner in the present case, subject to fulfilling bail bond requirements. Conclusion: The court ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail in the specific case, considering the legal principles and the status of the trial. The judgment clarified that the decision should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the case's merits, allowing the trial court to proceed without prejudice.
|
