The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3385 of 2017 Satish Chandra Singh, Son of Sheo Dayal Singh, Prop. of M/s Patliputra Security Services, R/o 161 Balajee Nagar, New Mainpura, P.O. & P.S. –Danapur, District –Patna (Bihar). .... Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coal Fields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District –Ranchi. 2. The General Manager, Central Coal Fields Ltd. Kuju Area, having its office at Kuju Area, P.O. & P.S. –Kuju, District -Ramgarh. 3. Area Security Officer, Central Coal Fields Ltd. Kuju Area, having its office at Kuju Area, P.O. & P.S. –Kuju, District -Ramgarh. …. Respondents P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
the case by the C.B.I., prima facie material exists to suggest that the petitioner has forged the service tax receipts. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that on the allegation against the petitioner and his company have submitted forged service tax receipts to the respondents and obtained reimbursement from the respondents against forged receipts; a criminal case has been instituted, in which the petitioner and his company, are the accused persons. The C.B.I. after investigation of the case found the allegations to be true and submitted charge sheet and the trial is going on. It is needless to mention that in case, the petitioner is held guilty and the trial court comes to a finding that if the service tax receipts are W.P. (C) No.3385 of 2017 4 forged one, then certainly the amount sought to be released by the respondents will be forfeited to the respondents. 7. Under such undisputed facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason, to pass orders in this writ petition, for release of the security deposit of the petitioner by the respondents at this stage; in view of the disputed fact is involved in this writ petition, as to whether or not the service tax receipts furnished by the petitioner to the respondent, are genuine or not. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. In case the petitioner is acquitted in R.C. No. 19(S)/2013-R, the petitioner may approach the respondent for release of security 8. 9. deposit. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th June, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) W.P. (C) No.3385 of 2017 5
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction upon the respondent no.2 – General Manager, Kuju Area, CCL to immediately and forthwith release the security deposit which is lying with him since June, 2013 when the existing work of providing security W.P. (C) No.3385 of 2017 1 services ended; so far as the petitioner is concerned and further directing the respondent no.2 to provide penal interest to the petitioner on the amount of security deposit withheld. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is a retired Lieutenant from Indian Navy. Under the policy of settlement of Ex-Servicemen by inter-alia setting up security agencies, the petitioner set up a security agency in the name of Patliputra Security Services and the firm of the petitioner provided security services to CCL, Jharkhand. The firm of the petitioner provided required services to Kuju Area of CCL between 01.08.2010 to 30.06.2013 uninterruptedly but the respondents are not returning the security deposit amount. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in urgent need of money for his treatment. It is next submitted that the petitioner was provided information under the Right to Information Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax Division that there is no service tax due against the petitioner as of now. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents drawing attention of this Court to the counter affidavit submits that there is allegation against the petitioner for submission of fake challan of service tax. After investigation of the case, C.B.I. found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge W.P. (C) No.3385 of 2017 2 sheet in R.C. No. 19(S)/2013-R. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent drawing attention of this Court to Clause 2.0.18 of the deed of agreement entered into between M/s Patliputra Security Services and the CCL, Kuju Area that the company of the petitioner has to deposit service tax every month without fail and a copy of the receipt as proof of submission of Service Tax will be attached while submitting the bills for payment and in compliance of the said clause, the petitioner submitted receipts of proof of submission of service tax. Later on the said service tax receipts submitted by the petitioner, in terms of the said clause of the agreement, were found to be forged; which in other words means that without depositing the service tax, the petitioner managed to get receipt of service tax prepared fraudulently and submitted the same to the respondents as genuine service tax payment receipts and got the reimbursement of the same from the petitioner. Drawing attention of this Court to Clause 5.0.1, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that under the said Clause, the security deposit of the company of the petitioner will stand forfeited in case of failure of contract terms/conditions and since deposit of service tax and furnishing receipts every month is a contract term/condition and once the judgment is rendered by the trial court by holding that the receipt of service tax produced by the petitioner and his W.P. (C) No.3385 of 2017 3 company with the respondent is forged one, hence the security deposit claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition shall stand forfeited and whether or not, the receipt of service tax is forged or not can be known upon conclusion of the trial of R.C. No. 19(S)/2013-R. It is then submitted that under such circumstances, the respondent has bonafide reason for withholding of the security deposit. It is then submitted that by now with submission of the charge sheet after investigation of