9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 396 - HC - GSTJurisdiction - Illegal import - powers of police officers - applicability of GST ACt or Customs Act - seizures - release of the seized goods - Power, scope and jurisdiction of the police in investigating offences which may be covered by more than one statute or by special statute - business of sale and supply of arecanuts (betel nuts) Whether the state police has power to investigate and effect seizure of goods for alleged forgery of documents in connection with certain transactions which can be relatable either to taxation statutes or Customs Act? HELD THAT - Since the Police initially intercepted and seized the trucks suspecting evasion of tax under the GST regime, and as the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the corresponding State law i.e. the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are also comprehensive and self-contained Acts, these coercive actions could have been done by the authorities under the CGST Act or the AGST Act. The AGST Act empowers the proper officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner to authorise any officer of State Tax to inspect, search, seize, and arrest persons as provided under Chapter XIV of the State Act. This Court is of the view that though the Customs Act or the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or the Assam Goods and Services Act, 2017 are self-contained Acts under which forgery or producing false documents are also offences, it cannot be said that the provisions of Indian Penal Code cannot be applicable as there is nothing under the Customs Act or the AGST Act that the provisions of the IPC cannot be invoked. There will be a bar only in respect of offences that are specifically mentioned in the special acts. Applicability of procedural law as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - Section 4(2) CrPC provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the CrPC, but shall be subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of the CrPC further provides that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force - What Sections 4 and 5 provide is that the Code shall continue to be applicable to special laws also, subject to the procedure prescribed under the special laws and if any special procedure is laid down under the special laws, such procedure would not be affected by the provisions of CrPC. Thus, the provisions of CrPC would continue to be applicable to proceedings under Customs Act or CGST Act/AGST Act, subject to the special procedure provided therein. However, this has no relation to the applicability of the provisions of IPC for offences committed under the said Code. This Court would hold that the Assam Police would have jurisdiction to investigate certain offences under the Indian Penal Code, if made out, even if these may be also offences under the CGST Act, 2017 or AGST Act or the Customs Act,1962 - However, as provided under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, no one will be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Whether the Police can conduct a roving enquiry? - HELD THAT - The principal offence seems to be illegal activity of smuggling covered by the Customs Act, 1962 and the offence of forgery of documents as alleged is a part of the larger illegal activity of smuggling. It is, therefore, apparent that if the petitioners are accused of forging documents, these are ancillary acts to accomplish the main illegal activity of smuggling areca nuts. It can, therefore, be said that the principal criminal activity engaged by the petitioners is smuggling of areca nuts from a foreign country, to accomplish which they also committed certain other offences like forgery of documents. Forgery of documents is thus an ancillary act to the principal act of smuggling areca nuts. In such an event, the customs authorities would be primarily responsible for investigation and prosecution of the petitioners. It would be appropriate for the police to hand over the investigation to the customs authorities as they cannot continue the investigation as far as the allegation of smuggling against the petitioners is concerned. Similarly, for the same reasons, the police authorities would have no jurisdiction and power to investigate as regards violation of the provisions of the taxation laws as the same are governed by the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 or AGST Act, 2017 under which there are separate investigative agencies. In the present case, unless the investigation already undertaken throws up new leads to other offences under the Penal Code as mentioned above, the Police ought not conduct a roving enquiry, otherwise, it would be susceptible to the charge of misuse of the criminal investigating power. As provided under Sections 154 and 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the criminal justice system can be set into motion by the police on getting information as to cognisable/non cognisable offence and proceed accordingly, and not otherwise. This Court is accordingly, of the view that even if the different statutes permit independent and separate investigations, if such investigations involve coercive actions similar to as contemplated under the CrPC, the investigations ought to be undertaken simultaneously, otherwise, there would be a distinct possibility of infraction of the precious rights of an accused as guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 22. This Court would hold that the initial seizure of areca nuts and the trucks by the Assam Police cannot be said to be without authority. But in view of the subsequent disclosures that these areca nuts were smuggled and transported by the trucks, the Customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 would now be the proper authorities to investigate the alleged offences and accordingly the police should hand over the seized areca nuts and the trucks to the Customs authorities for further investigation. If the Customs authorities need the help and assistance of the police, nothing prevents them from doing so. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Assam Police in seizing trucks and goods suspected of tax evasion and forgery. 2. Applicability of Indian Penal Code (IPC) versus special statutes like the Customs Act and GST Acts. 3. Whether the police can investigate offences under special statutes. 4. The role of different investigative agencies in cases involving multiple statutes. 5. The legality and scope of police actions in the context of alleged smuggling and forgery. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Assam Police in Seizing Trucks and Goods Suspected of Tax Evasion and Forgery: The petitioners, primarily proprietorship firms dealing in areca nuts, challenged the seizure of their trucks by Assam Police, arguing the police acted without jurisdiction. The police had detained the trucks based on information about improper documentation and possible smuggling. The court acknowledged that the initial seizure by the police was not without authority as the police acted on credible information and had jurisdiction under Section 102(1) CrPC to seize any property suspected to be involved in an offence. 2. Applicability of Indian Penal Code (IPC) Versus Special Statutes Like the Customs Act and GST Acts: The court examined whether the police could investigate offences under the IPC when the offences might also fall under special statutes like the Customs Act or GST Acts. The petitioners argued that offences under these special statutes should be investigated by the respective authorities. The court held that while the Customs Act and GST Acts are comprehensive and self-contained, they do not preclude the applicability of the IPC. Hence, the police can investigate offences under the IPC even if they are also offences under special statutes. 3. Whether the Police Can Investigate Offences Under Special Statutes: The court clarified that the police have the jurisdiction to investigate offences under the IPC, even if these offences overlap with special statutes. However, the police should not conduct a roving or fishing enquiry. In this case, the police were investigating forgery and use of forged documents, which are offences under the IPC. The court noted that if the primary offence is identified as smuggling under the Customs Act, the investigation should be handed over to the Customs authorities. 4. The Role of Different Investigative Agencies in Cases Involving Multiple Statutes: The court emphasized the need for coordination among different investigative agencies when multiple offences under different statutes are involved. It held that while the police can investigate IPC offences, they should hand over the investigation to the appropriate authorities if new offences under special statutes are revealed. This ensures that investigations are not prolonged unnecessarily and that the rights of the accused are protected. 5. The Legality and Scope of Police Actions in the Context of Alleged Smuggling and Forgery: The court observed that the police had acted on credible information and had initially detained the trucks for verification of tax documents. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the goods might be smuggled from Myanmar, making the Customs Act applicable. The court directed that the investigation of the alleged smuggling should be handed over to the Customs authorities, as they are the proper authorities to investigate such offences. The police can assist the Customs authorities if needed. Conclusion: The court held that the Assam Police had the authority to initially seize the trucks and goods based on credible information. However, since the primary offence appeared to be smuggling under the Customs Act, the investigation should be handed over to the Customs authorities. The police can investigate IPC offences but should not conduct a roving enquiry and should coordinate with other investigative agencies to ensure a fair and expeditious investigation. The petitions were disposed of with these observations and directions.
|
