9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 296 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeeking grant of regular bail - availing input tax credit on bogus billings during the assessment period of 2011-2012 - fraudulently obtaining refund of Rs. 4,32,578/- by using false and fabricated documents which includes sale invoices of cigarettes regarding interstate sale to Rajasthan - HELD THAT - It transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 28.06.2023. Investigating Agency has already completed the investigation and filed the final report under Section 173 and none out of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of the trial and the similarly situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. 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 VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 2012 (1) TMI 407 - SUPREME COURT , the involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner- Ashok Sukhija is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving FIR No. 653 dated 24.10.2020 registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sirsa. Details of the Judgment: 1. Allegations and Background: The FIR was lodged based on allegations that various firms claimed input tax credit on bogus billings during the assessment period of 2011-2012. The petitioner, a retired Assessment Officer, was implicated in the case concerning fraudulent refunds obtained using false documents by a firm named M/s Jai Bhagwati Trading Co. The complaint detailed how the dealer obtained refunds amounting to Rs. 4,32,578/- through fabricated documents, causing a revenue loss of Rs. 63,70,815/- to the State Exchequer. 2. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's involvement was due to his role as an Assessment Officer in 2014 when the alleged refunds were availed. Comparisons were drawn to a similarly situated co-accused who had been granted bail in another case. It was contended that invoking the Indian Penal Code in this matter would be an abuse of the process of law, as the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 should apply. The petitioner was involved in multiple FIRs on the same allegations, raising concerns of violation of Cr.P.C. provisions. 3. State's Opposition: The State counsel opposed the grant of bail, citing the petitioner's involvement in 15 cases and his role in making assessments based on false documents, leading to a significant revenue loss for the State. 4. Court's Decision: After hearing both parties and reviewing the case record, the court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 28.06.2023, with the investigation completed and no prosecution witnesses examined. Emphasizing that culpability would be determined during the trial, the court referred to precedents where similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail. Relying on legal precedents, the court granted the petitioner regular bail, emphasizing that involvement in other cases alone cannot be a ground for denial of bail. 5. Conclusion: The court ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail during the trial, subject to fulfilling bail conditions. It clarified that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits, urging the trial court to proceed without prejudice. This summary captures the key aspects of the judgment, including the allegations, arguments presented, the court's decision, and the legal principles applied in granting bail to the petitioner.
|
