9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 630 - HC - GSTGrant of statutory bail - contention is that once proceedings under one particular Act have already been initiated, i.e. either under the State Act or under the Central Act, then similar proceedings would not be initiated on essentially the same cause of action by the proper (designated) officer under the other Act. HELD THAT - With even the Excise Taxation Commissioner not denying that the cause of action as regards FIR No.0008 lodged against the petitioner on 05.01.2019 at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh, is the same cause as initiated by the Directorate General, GST (Intelligence) on 07.09.2018, this petition is allowed to the extent that as regards the provisions of the HGST Act, 2017, the FIR is hereby quashed; but with it made absolutely clear that as regards the offences alleged to have been committed in terms of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of the IPC, such proceedings would continue and be taken to their logical conclusion by the investigating agency in Haryana and the competent court to which the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is submitted. The petition stands disposed of.
Issues:
1. Quashing of FIR under Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Granting regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Differentiation of roles of accused in a scam. 4. Allegations of forgery and active involvement in creating bogus firms. Quashing of FIR under Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: In the case CRM-M-41006-2020, the petitioner sought the quashing of FIR No.0008 registered on 05.01.2019 at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, and Section 132(1)(B)(C) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that similar proceedings under the Central and State Acts should not be initiated on the same cause of action. The Excise & Taxation Commissioner's affidavit confirmed that the cases in Delhi and Haryana were based on the same set of facts. The Court allowed the petition to the extent that the FIR under the HGST Act, 2017 was quashed, while proceedings under IPC sections would continue. Granting regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.: In cases CRM-M-34606-2021, CRM-M-47869-2021, CRM-M-18621-2021, and CRM-M-15248-2021, the petitioners sought regular bail upon being charged with various offenses. The petitioners were earlier granted interim bail due to their limited role in a scam involving cheating the public exchequer. The Court, noting no misuse of bail and the nature of allegations, made the interim bail absolute in each case without commenting on the merits. Differentiation of roles of accused in a scam: The Court differentiated the roles of the accused in the scam, where some were allegedly only used as 'tools' by the prime accused for petty gains, while others were actively involved in creating bogus firms. The Court considered the level of involvement and misuse of bail before making decisions on regular bail applications. Allegations of forgery and active involvement in creating bogus firms: In case CRM-M-44111-2020, the petitioner Charan Singh was alleged to have forged signatures of a deceased person who was the proprietor of a bogus firm. The Court directed the SP Mahendergarh to file an affidavit regarding Charan Singh's role, as he claimed to be only an employee of the prime accused. The Court emphasized the need to differentiate between roles in the scam before making decisions on bail applications.
|
