9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 92 - HC - GSTGrant of anticipatory bail - utilization of input tax credit for himself with dishonest intention to evade payment of taxes - fake and forged documents - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT has categorically held that the courts should not thwart an investigation into the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court cannot and should not embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and save in exceptional cases where non interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of the investigations of the offences. It has also been held that it would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated. Effectively the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated and further expounded the principles enunciated in the judgment of State of STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT . In NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT it is clear that the interference of the High Court at the stage of investigation has to be in exceptional circumstances and the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR. In the present case the petitioner has raised a number of grounds, all of which are a matter of his defence or at best would be placed before the investigating agency when he joins investigation. This Court cannot examine the veracity or the genuineness of the documents attached to this petition and come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner. There is no merit in the present quashing petition, which is hereby dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Quashing of FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered against the petitioner. 2. Allegations of fraudulent registration under the CGST/HGST Act, 2017 by the petitioner. 3. Contention by the petitioner regarding the genuineness of documents and innocence. 4. Failure of investigating agency to find material against the petitioner. 5. Absconding of the petitioner and rejection of bail application. 6. Application of legal principles regarding quashing of FIRs and interference at the investigation stage. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR under various sections of the IPC, alleging fraudulent registration under the CGST/HGST Act, 2017. The FIR accused the petitioner of submitting fake and forged documents to evade taxes. The Court noted the allegations and the documents submitted by the petitioner, emphasizing that the genuineness of documents cannot be ascertained at this stage of investigation. 2. The petitioner contended that the documents submitted for registration were genuine and that the firm existed at the stated address. The petitioner argued that the input credit availed and payments made were legitimate. However, the State's counsel argued that the petitioner's bail application was rejected, and he was absconding, hindering the investigation's progress. 3. The petitioner highlighted his innocence and presented documents to support his claim. He raised grievances with higher authorities regarding false implication but received no action. The Court noted the petitioner's failure to join the investigation despite the dismissal of his anticipatory bail, citing a Supreme Court case where lack of bona fides on the part of the accused was considered. 4. The Court referenced legal precedents emphasizing that the judiciary should not interfere in investigations unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court highlighted the need for the petitioner to participate in the investigation rather than filing for quashing without cooperating. The judgment dismissed the quashing petition based on the facts and legal principles discussed. 5. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment regarding the duty of courts not to thwart investigations into cognizable offenses. It reiterated that the court should not assess the genuineness of allegations at the initial stage and should allow the investigating agency to complete its work. The Court emphasized that interference at the investigation stage should be exceptional and dismissed the quashing petition due to the petitioner's failure to cooperate and absconding status. 6. The judgment underscored the importance of the petitioner's participation in the investigation process and criticized the petitioner's attempt to stall proceedings. The Court dismissed the quashing petition based on the lack of merit and failure of the petitioner to engage in the investigation process as required by law. The legal principles regarding quashing of FIRs and the limitations on court interference at the investigation stage were extensively discussed and applied in the judgment.
|
