Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4668 of 2021
---------
Kamal Ray ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A. - II
: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
---------
06/23.12.2021 Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G. A. - II as well as
Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Chaibasa
Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019.
It has been alleged that the premises of Rakesh Kumar Garg
of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises was inspected by the informant but
the same was not found and in the registration certificate the
permanent address was mentioned as resident of House No.
46/670, Gali No. 04, Bangalipara, Sarkanda, Bilashpur,
Chhattisgarh and for the registration of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises
the address was shown as F.S. Tower, 2 nd Floor, Chaibasa and the
business place was taken on rent by the petitioner. It has been
alleged that on enquiry, the petitioner had disclosed that he does
not know Rakesh Kumar Garg whereas in the registration
certificate the business place has been mentioned as F. S. Tower,
2nd Floor, Chaibasa which has been taken on rent by the
petitioner.
On the perusal of the agreement it emerges that the said
office was taken on rent at the Rs. 4,484/- per month for three
years from one Gurmukh Singh Khokhar and a condition was
included that the rented premises would not be sublet to any
other person in any situation. It has further been alleged that the
petitioner had given the aforesaid office to Rakesh Kumar Garg
proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises and the petitioner had
deposited online fee of Rs. 100/- for registration of VAT and GST
of the firm through Bank of India account held in the name of the
petitioner. On verification, it was revealed that TIN No.
20071207894 and GSTIN No. 20AIYPG5361Q1ZN were issued to
co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg proprietor of M/s. Tirupati
Enterprises. It has been alleged that the act of the petitioner and
others accused persons had caused revenue loss to the State
Government to the tune of Rs. 2,25,64,665.30/-.
It has been submitted by Mr. Tripathi, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that only allegation against the
petitioner is that the principal accused used the address of the
premises where the business of the petitioner is situated. Learned
senior counsel submits that the petitioner does not have any
connection with M/s. Tirupati Enterprises. It has been submitted
that the petitioner is a Cost Management Accountant and is
carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Kamal
Associates which is run and looked after by the staffs of the
petitioner having branches at different places. Learned senior
counsel has referred to Sections 72 and 73 of the Jharkhand
Goods and services Tax Act, 2017 and has stated that the
mandate laid down in the said provisions have not been followed.
It has further been argued while referring to the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 5501 of
2019 and WMP No. 6251 of 2019 that the power to punish and
set out offences under Section 132 of the Jharkhand Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 can only be set in motion after it is
established that an assessee has committed an offence which can
be arrived at only after determination of the demand due from the
assessee. Learned senior counsel has also referred to a letter
dated 16.01.2019 issued by Sales Tax Department and has
submitted that in the recommendation made for institution of the
First Information Report the name of the petitioner did not figure.
Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is not
the ultimate beneficiary. It has also been stated that the
petitioner is in custody since 19.01.2021.
Mr. P.A. S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has
referred to a comparative chart depicted in Paragraph - 8 of the
counter affidavit filed in B.A. No. 4669 of 2021 while highlighting
the modus operandi of the petitioner in causing loss to the State
exchequer. It has been submitted that the petitioner is the master
mind of the entire fraudulent exercise.
Mr. Pati, further submits that the petitioner is also an
accused in Chaibasa Sadar P. S. Case No. 21 of 2019 which was
with respect to M/s. Balaji Enterprises and the place of
business of both M/s. Tirupati Enterprises and M/s. Balaji
Enterprises are same and which is the office of the petitioner.
It has further been stated that proceedings in terms of
Sections 72 and 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 were duly followed after issuing show cause notice and the
final adjudication order has been passed which has been
uploaded on the portal in the prescribed Form DRC - 7.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P has also opposed the
payer for bail of the petitioner.
On consideration of the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties coupled with the period
of custody undergone by the petitioner which is since 19.01.2021,
the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, in
connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
