9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 848 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of present FIR - only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties have already initiated proceedings under Sections 60(3) and Section 31(2) of the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005 for the offences as alleged in the complaint petition, hence the present FIR could not have been lodged for the same offence in view of the well settled principle of law that a person cannot be convicted twice for the one and the same offence - Held that - the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any provisions in the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005, which provides for criminal prosecution of the person who has furnished forged TIN number of the purchaser on the bills pertaining to the goods being transported through the check post. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India incorporates the principles of autrefois convicts or double jeopardy, which means that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once - In order to attract the protection guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, it is to be seen as to whether the ingredients of the offences alleged under two separate Acts are same or different. In the present case, while the petitioner is being proceeded under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, for concealing or failing to disclose full and correct particular of sale or purchase etc. as well as for evasion of tax, the present prosecution has been launched under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for committing forgery and cheating by furnishing invalid and false TIN number of the purchaser on the bill. Thus, the offence under the provisions of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act were, it seems, consequent to the offences under the Indian Penal Code, which ostensibly were committed first. Hence, in the present case, the same set of facts definitely constitute offence under two different law i.e. one under the Indian Penal Code and other under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, thus neither Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India has any relevance to the present case nor the present criminal prosecution can be said to be barred or a case of double jeopardy, much less liable to be quashed, therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner herein. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the FIR lodged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Applicability of the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 3. Simultaneous proceedings under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the Indian Penal Code. Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the FIR lodged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code: The case arises from Kuchaikot P.S. Case No. 315 of 2012, lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 406, 407, 468, 471, 407, 409, 120(B)/34. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Commercial Taxes Officer alleging that the petitioner and other transport companies were involved in evading tax by using forged TIN numbers on bills. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 20.07.2013. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the FIR should not have been lodged as proceedings under Sections 60(3) and 31(2) of the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005, had already been initiated. 2. Applicability of the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India: The petitioner contended that lodging the FIR violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. The court clarified that Article 20(2) applies only if the ingredients of the offences under two separate Acts are the same. The court cited several precedents, including Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, which explained that the doctrine of double jeopardy means a person must not be put in peril twice for the same offence. The court also referred to State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, which held that for Article 20(2) to apply, the offences must be identical in their ingredients. 3. Simultaneous proceedings under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the Indian Penal Code: The court noted that the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, does not provide for criminal prosecution for the offences alleged in the complaint. Sections 31(2)(a) and 60(3) of the Act pertain to penalties for tax evasion and inspection of goods but do not cover criminal prosecution for forgery or cheating. The court emphasized that proceedings under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act and the IPC are independent of each other. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bhupendra Champak Lal Dalal, which held that criminal proceedings can proceed independently of civil proceedings under tax laws. The court also referred to Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, which explained that overlapping facts in different cases do not attract the doctrine of double jeopardy if the ingredients of the offences are different. Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecution under the IPC and the proceedings under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act are independent and can proceed simultaneously. The offences under the IPC, such as forgery and cheating, are distinct from the tax evasion offences under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act. Therefore, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply, and the FIR cannot be quashed on this ground. The petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the criminal prosecution.
|
