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

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (12) TMI 1205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... IR are squarely covered under the provisions of Sections 57 58 of the 2005 Act. It was further observed that the 2005 Act is a complete Code in itself and there is no provision provided in the 2005 Act for registration of the FIR. It was further observed that the 2005 Act only provided for imposition of penalty in case there is any contravention of its provisions and since the 2005 Act is a special law, principle of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply, meaning thereby it would operate in exclusion to the general law i.e., the IPC. However, this Court notices that in the absence of factual matrix in Ashwani Kumar s case, it is not possible to comment as to whether in those cases also, there were allegations regarding bogus re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irsa, informing that a firm by the name of M/s. J.C. Enterprises (proprietor Sh. Madan Lal) was found involved in claiming bogus refund on account of input tax credit. During the assessment period 2011-12, this dealer fraudulently obtained refund of Rs. 29,29,035/- by using false and fabricated documents, including sale invoices of cigarettes regarding interstate sales to Rajasthan, VAT D-3 forms showing the sale of cement/tiles, and C forms bearing particular serial numbers. These refunds were obtained by using the specified C forms procured from the dealers of Rajasthan, who used to deal in the trading of tax-free commodities, i.e., khal, binola, etc., claiming interstate sales of cigarettes against the said C forms. It was further foun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short the IPC ] cannot be attracted. Ld. Counsel referred to CRM-M-23662- 2016 decided on 16.05.2023 titled Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Punjab. It is submitted further that CRM-M-39311-2023 has already been filed to quash the FIR on this ground and this Court has granted ad interim relief vide order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P5). Contention in CRM-M-52902-2023 4. On behalf of petitioner-Ashok Sukhija, it is contended by ld. counsel that petitioner had joined his services at Sirsa on 02.07.2013, whereas the case in hand pertains to refund for the year 2011-12. It is Sh. D.P. Beniwal, the then Excise and Taxation Officer, who was responsible for conducting the physical verification of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng loss to the State exchequer to the tune of more than Rs. 29 lakhs; that though the allegations make out violation of the provisions of the Act, but at the same time, there is nothing which precluded the police to investigate a crime under the provisions of IPC, in case allegations leveled in the FIR make out the commission of offences under the IPC. Ld. State counsel contends that fraud and fabrication of documents on the part of petitioners is writ large, as they are involved in evading of VAT by claiming input tax credit on the basis of forged documents. Prayer is made for rejecting both the petitions. 7. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. 8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case (Supra) and Dilawar Singh s case (Supra), it is not possible to comment as to whether in those cases also, there were allegations regarding bogus refund of input tax credit based on false and fabricated documents. In these circumstances, it will be a debatable issue as to whether the provisions of IPC shall be applicable to the present case or not. 10. At the same time, it is not disputed even by the ld. State counsel that FIR pertains to the bogus refund of input tax credit in respect of Assessment Year 2011-12, in which the alleged loss of Rs. 29,29,359/- to the State exchequer was finalized at least on 11.11.2014 in revision order, as is mentioned in the FIR itself. No explanation is given in the FIR about the delay of more than .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates