Gopi Chand Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gopi Chand Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana on 21 February, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024317




CRM-M-61656-2023                                                                 1
                                                                 2024:PHHC:024317

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
231
                                          CRM-M-61656-2023
                                          Date of decision : 21.02.2024

Gopi Chand Chaudhary                                        ...... Petitioner

                                 versus

State of Haryana                                           ...... Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:     Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate and
             Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

                      ****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant

of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.642 dated 24.10.2020

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,

467, 468 and 471 of IPC (Section 120-B of IPC added later on) at Police

Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. As per the contents of the FIR it has been alleged as under:-

“OFFICE OF DY EXCISE TAXATION
COMMISSIONER (ST) SIRSA, VANIJYA BHAWAN,
BARNALA ROAD SIRSA. From Excise Taxation Officer
Ward No. 5 Sirsa. To, The Superintendent of Police Sirsa.
No. 3642 dated 12.12.19. Subject: – Regarding registration
of FIR against Sh. Leela Dhar S/o Partap Singh H. No. 625
Sector 4 Behind City Thana Gali Thakran Wali Sirsa, Prop
M/s Ganga Ram Traders Sirsa TIN 06082918738. Memo
On the subject cited above, it is informed that a firm in the
name of M/s Ganga Ram Traders Sirsa TIN 06082918738 is

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:45:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024317

CRM-M-61656-2023 2
2024:PHHC:024317

found involved in claiming bogus refund on account of
input tax credit. During the assessment period 2011-12, this
dealer has fraudulently obtained refund of Rs. 2478775/- by
using false and fabricated documents which includes sale
invoices of cigarettes regarding inter-state sale to Rajasthan,
VAT D-3 forms showing sale of Cigarettes and C forms
bearing No. R/C/2007/3627038, R/C/2007/3627044,
R/C/2009/4444767, RJ/C/2011-12/000001296. These
refunds were obtained by using the above mentioned C
forms procured from the dealers of Rajasthan who used to
deal in the trading of tax free commodity i.e. khal, binola
etc, on account of showing the interstate sale of
Cement/Tiles/Cigarettes against said C forms. On perusal
record, it has been found that actually dealer has used
forged and false documents of sale (as mentioned above):

and without making any actual movement of goods during
the course of inter state sale, dealer has obtained the refund
to the tune of Rs. 2478775/-. This dealer has claimed input
tax credit @21% 13.125% on account of purchases of
Cigarettes and further shown disposal of these goods @2%
in the course: of interstate sale against C forms. It has also
been observed by the Special Team(Refund) in his report
bearing No 99 dated 29.1.2016 that no taxable goods were
sold in the course of inter state sale by M/s Ganga Ram
Traders, Sirsa, Pather, in Rajasthan, against these C forms,
tax free goods (khal/Binola) have been shows accounted for
which shows that benefit of input tax credit has been
claimed and obtained by M/s Ganga Ram Traders Sirsa
despite the fact that no tax has been paid at any stage by the
dealer. Moreover, claim of sale at concessional rate of tax
against C forms has been claimed wrongly. In this way, by
claiming false ITC and claiming sales at concessional rate
of tax against the C forms by submitting false and fabricated
documents, have caused revenue loss amounting to Rs.
15805146/- to the State Exchequer as per re-assessment

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:45:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024317

CRM-M-61656-2023 3
2024:PHHC:024317

order No. 812A dated 18.11.2019. It is accordingly:

requested to register FIR against Sh Leela Dhar S/o Partap
Singh H.No. 625 Sector 4 Behind City Thana Gali Thakran
Wali Sirsa, Prop M/s Ganga Ram Traders Sirsa TIN
06082918738 as per relevant provisions/sections of IPC and
any other penal law if applicable, for investigation in the
matter as per law. Sd Chap Singh Excise Taxation Officer
Ward No. 5 Sirsa. Endst No 3643-44 /TI dated 12.12.19. A
copy is forwarded to the following for information please:-

The Excise Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Panchkula.
The Dy Excise Taxation Commissioner(ST) Sirsa. Excise
Taxation piieer Ward No. 5 Sirsa.”

3. The FIR relates to allowing refund on the basis of forged and

fabricated documents.

4. State Counsel submits that role of the petitioner is similar to the

one in the connected case i.e. CRM-M-59913-2023.

5. On the specific query being asked to Counsel representing the

State as to what was the role of the petitioner in issuing refund to the accused-

firm as unearthed in the investigation, he on instructions from the Investigating

Officer submits that the petitioner used to charge 2% to 3% commission on

refund.

6. Having heard rival contention of the parties, this Court finds that

the allegation in the FIR is w.r.t. the assessee having claimed refund wrongly

by submitting forged and false documents of sale. Thus the role of the

petitioner primarily relates to error in judgment. There is no such allegation that

the petitioner acted in cahoots with the assessee to award refund illegally.

7. It is not disputed by State Counsel that the Challan already stands

presented. Investigation is complete and as on date the evidence w.r.t. meeting

of minds between the petitioner and the main accused remains amiss.

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:45:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024317

CRM-M-61656-2023 4
2024:PHHC:024317

8. The petitioner is stated to be 67 years old Senior Citizen earning

pension from the State. It is also not disputed that the petitioner served State

with clean record and has no criminal antecedents.

9. In view of above this Court finds that there is no reason to prolong

custody of the petitioner as a punitive measure. Resultantly, the present petition

is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate

concerned.

10. Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be

construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.





                                                (PANKAJ JAIN)
                                                    JUDGE
21.02.2024
Dinesh
                   Whether speaking/reasoned :              Yes

                   Whether Reportable :                     No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024317

                                     4 of 4
                  ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 08:45:48 :::
 

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *