SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(All) 1563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Suresh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Govind Enterprises – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7303 of 2019
Decided On : 30-05-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anil Prakash Mathur.
For the Respondent: C.B. Tripathi.

Headnote:

Penal Code,1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B – U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Sections 69, 122, 132 and 134 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 300 – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Sections 21, 22 – Seeking quashing of first information report – Held, Impugned FIR, we find that, prima facie, necessary ingredients of an offence of cheating, by submitting false information and documents, are clearly spelt out – Because, according to allegations bogus firm was got registered by showing false and bogus addresses of business and by taking advantage of such registration, inward e-way bills were generated to make purchase of goods worth Rs. 35 odd crores thereafter, without generating outward supply bills, huge amount of money was deposited in cash in undisclosed bank account, suggesting that goods were sold without proper documentation, with view to evade taxes – Therefore, impugned FIR not disclose commission of cognizable offences punishable under Penal Code – Hence, impugned FIR not liable to be quashed – Petition dismissed. (Paras: 34 to 36)

Facts of the case:

All facts and Consideration of Seeking quashing of first information report.

Findings of the court:

Impugned FIR, we find that, prima facie, necessary ingredients of an offence of cheating, by submitting false information and documents, are clearly spelt out – Because, according to allegations bogus firm was got registered by showing false and bogus addresses of business and by taking advantage of such registration, inward e-way bills were generated to make purchase of goods worth Rs. 35 odd crores thereafter, without generating outward supply bills, huge amount of money was deposited in cash in undisclosed bank account, suggesting that goods were sold without proper documentation, with view to evade taxes – Therefore, impugned FIR not disclose commission of cognizable offences punishable under Penal Code – Hence, impugned FIR not liable to be quashed.

Result: Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Misra, J.

1. Instant petition seeks quashing of first information report (for short FIR), dated 30.11.2018, lodged by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax at police station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B IPC.

2. The impugned FIR alleges that M/s Govind Enterprises (the petitioner) applied for registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short U.P. Act) to conduct business in packing material, by showing its place of business on the First Floor, NH-2, in front of Gate No. 1, Anaj Mandi, Kosi Kalan, District Mathura. Upon which, on 09.03.2018, GST No. 09CBIPA0305H1Z7 was provided to it. At the time of obtaining registration, the applicant disclosed its e-mail ID as advocateonlyforgst@gmail.com and mobile No. 8533952295. Further, while applying for registration, it was declared that the office space for the firm was obtained on rent from Mahaveer Singh son of Ramesh Chandra at Rs. 1,000/- per month. The rent agreement and receipt of electricity connection, dated 17.02.2017, obtained from Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited was also uploaded at the portal. It is alleged that on 27.09.2018, an inquiry about the dealer was conducted by Sri Narendra Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sri Gulab Chandra, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax and Ms. Isha Gautam, Assistant Commissioner. It was found that at the disclosed place of business, there was no display board to show the name of the firm; the disclosed place was just a room measuring 18 feet x 20 feet, that, at the time of inspection, the landlord Mahaveer Singh was found, who disclosed that, on 01.03.2018, the room was let out to Govind Agrawal (proprietor of the petitioner-firm) on a rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month; that he himself had applied for registration for the trader; and that he had been an Advocate for the firm. It is alleged that the room had no books of account relating to the firm; that only a computer and laptop with a printer was found, which, according to Mahaveer Singh, did not carry any data relating to the firm; that papers kept there were relating to his own legal practice and that two persons found working on the computer, upon enquiry, disclosed that they were working for the Advocate in connection with his accountancy work. The inspection further revealed that there was no place or godown to maintain/keep stock. It was also disclosed to the team that M/s Govind Enterprises conducted its entire business from Kanpur and that all books of account relating to the firm are maintained in its Kanpur Branch. Upon receipt of the above information, it is alleged, a survey/inspection of the branch at Kanpur was also conducted by Sri Chandra Shekhar, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax on 27.09.2018 itself. Upon inspection of the Kanpur branch, a labour contractor, namely, Mukesh Sharma son of Ram Kumar Sharma, was found. The team was informed by the landlord-Indrapal that the concerned shop had been provided to one Dharmendra Gurjar son of Kali Charan. Dharmendra Gurjar informed that the premises was taken on rent on the request of accountant Manish; that the shop was taken on rent on 15.09.2018 at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month; that he is a Muneem in the firm on a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month; that he does not know Govind Agrawal; that he had been sent by Ram Niwas Gurjar, who runs business by the name of Pitambar Transport. The team found that the shop concerned was just about 10 feet x 20 feet in dimensions and it appeared that it had not been opened for last several days. The team was also informed that since the time the premises had been taken on rent, only a truck load of goods had been received in which there were bundles of plastic films (Panni). When account books etc. were demanded, the team was informed that bills etc. were with the accountant who is at Mathura. The owner of the building was also queried who denied existence of any written agreement and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top