9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made by the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST) Sirsa on the allegations that various firms have claimed input tax credit on bogus billings during the assessment period of 2011-2012. The FIR was lodged against these firms which were found obtaining refund by using false and fabricated documents. It is informed in the complaint that a firm in the name of M/s Jai Bhagwati Trading Co., R/o H. No 98RSD Colony Sirsa TIN 06542918776 is found involved in claiming bogus refund on account of input tax credit. During the assessment Year 2011- 12, this dealer has fraudulently obtained refund of Rs. 4,32,578/- by using false and fabricated documents which includes sale invoices of cigarettes regarding interstate sale to Rajasthan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itting false and fabricated documents, have caused revenue loss amounting to Rs. 63,70,815/- to the State Exchequer as per revision order No. 05E/2011-12 dated 11.11.2014. It is accordingly requested to register FIR against Sh. Kamal Bansal S/o Sh. Payre Lal R/o H. No. 98 RSD Colony Sirsa, Prop M/s Jai Bhagwati Trading Co., Sirsa TIN 06542918776 as per relevant provisions/sections of IPC and any other penal law if applicable, for investigation in the matter as per law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is is 67 years of age and retired from service in the year 2014 and he has been involved in the present FIR only on the ground that he was Deputy Excise and Taxation Officer in the year 2012 when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner in FIR No. 657 dated 24.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) vide order dated 09.10.2023 passed in CRM-M-49998-2023. The Investigating Agency has already completed the investigation and filed the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. on 25.09.2023 and the trial has not made any progress as none of the 30 prosecution witnesses, as cited by the prosecution, has been examined so far. 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) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, it has been held that pendency of any other criminal case against the accused cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail. 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
