Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2020 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (3) TMI 289 - HC - GST


Issues:
Challenge to quash FIR under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and GST Act; Allegations of bogus firms and false invoices for tax evasion; Lack of specific allegation of tax evasion in transactions; Lack of public witness for recovery; Interpretation of GST Code and applicability of IPC provisions.

Detailed Analysis:
The petition sought to quash an FIR dated 06.02.2020 under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, and GST Act. The FIR alleged the creation of bogus firms and fabrication of false invoices for tax evasion. The FIR was based on information from GST Portal, mobile squad, and search operations revealing a declared business place used for preparing false documents. The FIR implicated the petitioners in setting up bogus firms to evade tax, supported by findings from search operations and subsequent inquiries.

The petitioners challenged the FIR on grounds including lack of complaints from firms whose stamps were found, absence of specific tax evasion allegations, no public witness for recovery, and the necessity of a specific finding on GST evasion before an offense can be deemed committed. The State opposed quashing, citing substantial allegations of bogus firms and false invoices for tax evasion in the FIR, warranting investigation.

The High Court analyzed the allegations and legal aspects involved. It noted the FIR's focus on bogus firm registrations and false invoices for tax evasion, based on search operations and subsequent inquiries. The Court emphasized that investigation should not be halted if allegations have substance, as in this case. The Court also referenced a previous case to highlight the application of IPC provisions alongside GST Act for offenses, rejecting the argument that FIR couldn't be lodged without a specific GST Code order on tax evasion.

The Court addressed the petitioners' contention regarding the lack of complaints from firms whose stamps were found, stating it was irrelevant given the firms were non-existent. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, as the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses related to bogus firms and false invoices for tax evasion, underscoring that the petitioners could seek bail despite the dismissal.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the FIR's validity, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation into the alleged creation of bogus firms and fabrication of false invoices for tax evasion, underscoring the importance of legal provisions under both the IPC and GST Act in addressing such offenses.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates