Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gopi Chand Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana on 18 December, 2023
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162717
CRM-M-61725-2023 1
2023:PHHC:162717
296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 18th of December, 2023
CRM-M-61725-2023
GOPI CHAND CHAUDHARY ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner .
Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.266 dated 26.08.2016,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465,
467, 471 IPC and Sections 409, 120-B IPC added later on at Police Station
City Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
2. As per the contents of the FIR it has been alleged as under :
"12. From Excise & Taxation Officer Ward No. 7 Dabwali, To,
The Superintendent of Police Sirsa No. 1650/TI dated 22/8/16
Subject:- To register complaint regarding the matter of crime
committed by Sh. Parven Kumar S/o Sh. Gajanand Prop of M/s
Jagdamba Trading Co., Dabwali TIN 06392918325 Asst Year
2010-11 Memo With the orders of Hon'ble 'Excise & Taxation
Commissioner, Haryana Panchkula letter No., WhatsApp
message (annexure) and DETC(ST) Sirsa vide memo No. 441
dated 27-5-2016, directions have been given to the lodge an FIR
against those dealers who are identified to be indulging in tax
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162717
2023:PHHC:162717
evasion, fraudulent claim of input tax credit, raising bogus bills
or floating bogus firms. On the subject cited above, it is brought
to your kind knowledge that M/s Jagdambaa Trading Co.,
Dabwali TIN 06392918325 was a registered dealer at Sirsa ward
No.7. the RC was granted for the business of commission agent
of food grains. Later on he applied for addition of bidi, cigarette,
tiles and other tobacco products. The dealer had made inter state
sale against C forms to the dealers of Rajasthan. Inter State sale
of course are governed by rate of taxation laid down in the
Central tax Act 1956. The retail invoices and other documents
relied upon the dealer to claim of lower rate of tax under CST
Act 1956 were not produced at the time of assessment/re-
assessment of the firm. In view of the verification made from the
office of CTO Hanumangarh, it has been noticed that the dealer
of Rajasthan has accounted for tax free commodity in their
returns filed before the authorities of Rajasthan whereas dealer
of Sirsa district has shown sale to them cigarettes which is
taxable commodity in Rajasthan. The copy of return filed before
the authority of Rajasthan is placed of the file. It means this
dealer has not sold any taxable commodity to the dealer of
Rajasthan and the entire sale of Cigarette (for which the dealer
has submitted the C forms to the office of DETC (ST) Sirsa) is
made as local sale within the State of Haryana. Therefore,
fabrication and forgery committed the relevant provisions of the
code are thus invoked against the dealer. Reports from
Commercial Tax Officer Circle A Hanumangarh, Commercial
Tax Department, Government of Rajasthan are placed on the file
which reveals that the dealer has made fraudulent inter state
transactions while the dealer of the Rajasthan State deals in tax
free goods. It clearly indicates that the dealer is intentionally not
paying the tax with the support of proper planning by showing
the false interstate sales on bogus documents and causing the
loss to the government exchequer. Through this systematic
crime, government has to face a lot of financial loss. Besides, it
is very pertinent to mention here that M/s Jagdamba Trading Co.,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162717
2023:PHHC:162717
Dabwali TIN 06392918325 has taken an amount of Refund of
Rs. 496433/- from the government exchequer on the basis of
interstate sales of cigarette against C forms by issuing the bogus
bills. Hence, forge and fabricate documents submitted by the
dealer attract penal action u/s 406, 419, 420, 465, 467 471 I.P.C.
Please be needful in the matter. Sd/- Excise & Taxation Officer
Sirsa Endst No. /TI(5) dated the A copy is forwarded to the Ld
Dy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST), Sirsa for
information please Sd/- Excise & Taxation Officer 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 CRM-M Nos.57559, 60624 and 59913 of 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162717
2023:PHHC:162717
w.r.t. meeting of minds between the petitioner and the main accused
remains amiss.
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.
December 18, 2023 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162717
4 of 4
