Nikit Mittal v. Renu Singh

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State ------ : : : : : ------ Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate. Mr. Shreenu Garapati, S.C.-III. Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. 06/ 31.08.2023 Since the common facts and the FIR are under challenge in all these petitions, that’s why, all these petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.

#2. Heard Mr. N.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these matters, Mr. Shreenu Garapati, learned S.C.-III along with Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha and Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, learned A.P.Ps. for the Sate in respective cases.

#3. In all these matters, the prayers have been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 121 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 663 of 2018, registered for the offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 73, 74, 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

#4. The FIR was registered alleging therein that for the period 1st July, 2017 to 31st March, 2018 i.e., the period when the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 was implemented and made effective, since the Input Tax Credit available to the concerned / registered dealers were available to be set-off against the liability to be created or created -2- between the period in question, the petitioners being Director of M/s Shri Ram Allows and Ingot Pvt. Ltd, Bokaro abetted to mis-utilise the aforesaid Input Tax Credit for the wrong figures / amount by two of the Dealers namely:- (a) M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal and Salt Company Pvt. Ltd. (b) M/s Renu Raj Enterprises. On the basis of the said allegations made against the petitioners, the First Information Report has been registered under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 73, 74, 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as an abettor and for which the prosecution has been launched.

#5. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases submits that no offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 73, 74, 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are made out against the petitioners. He submits that in view of Section 134 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, only the Commissioner of the State Taxes is competent to sanction the prosecution, where in the case in hand, the Additional Commissioner has granted the sanction of prosecution. He further submits the individuals have not been made an accused, however allegations have been made against the company and he refers to Section 137 of the said Act. He further submits that even the special law is there, the IPC Sections are not attracted. He refers to the case of Jeevan Kumar Raut Versus CBI, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 526. He further submits that the cases under the GST are compoundable in view of Section 138 of the said Act. He also submits that for the case arising out of GST, only complaint can be maintainable, whereas in the present case, the FIR has been registered. He further submits that in the FIR, there is allegation against the petitioners that Input Tax Credit has wrongly availed by the petitioners for that the cases have been registered. He submits that a batch of writ petitions were filed, challenging the demand and assessment and the petitioners’ case were registered as W.P.(T) No. 91 of 2021, W.P.(T) No. 94 of 2021 and W.P.(T) No. -3- 163 of 2021 respectively. He also submits that all the writ petitions have been heard by the Division Bench along with other identical matters and the said cases were decided by the judgment dated

14.09.2022. He refers to the judgment passed by the Division Bench, which is contained in the paper book and submits that the names of the petitioners has come in para 12(ix), 12(x) and 12(xii) respectively of the said judgment. He further submits that by the said judgment of the Division Bench the demand and assessment order was quashed and the matters were remitted back for fresh consideration after fulfilling the modalities.

#6. The Paper Book, in which, the judgment of the Division Bench has been annexed, which has been handed over by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been taken on record.

#7. In view of the above facts, the court finds that the basis of filing of the FIR has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this court along with the other cases and the matter has been remitted back to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order, as such, the basis of filing of the FIR has already been quashed, to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of law.

#8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 121 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 663 of 2018, registered for the offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 73, 74, 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, are hereby, quashed.

#9. After the fresh assessment, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, if the State finds that there is a fresh cause of action, the State may move in accordance with law.

#10. All these petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)