IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :04.09.2025 Pronounced on:31.10.2025.

Vishal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by:Mr. Pragyati, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

In Police Station Gohana City, District Sonepat, the FIR No.475 dated 20.10.2020 has been lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 11 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. In the above mentioned FIR the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. The petitioner is aggrieved of the above mentioned prosecution, and therefore, he has approached this Court for quashing of abovesaid FIR by invoking the jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being in response to a written complaint submitted by the Office of Excise and Taxation officer dated 13.02.2000. The allegations contained in the above mentioned complaint were as under:-

“their office has received a communication that huge outward supply has been made by ‘M/s Bhagwati Traders’, Khanpur turn, Gohana, Sonipat (06AILPV7596K12Z4) to Mandi Govindgarh. Punjab. That preliminary inquiry was conducted by the said office and it was observed that this firm is non-existent and non-functional and for name sake only a sign board has been installed in front of premises located at Khanpur turn, Gohana, Sonipat. That from the volume of transactions made by the tax payer, it seems that only paper transaction has been made and this tax payer has made the following purchases from the State/UT of Haryana, Punjab, Chandigarh, Uttrakhand, Delhi, and made subsequent sale of Rs. 14,85,07,183/-to the State of Punjab as mentioned in the letter received from Punjab Authorities.

The details of the transaction were given in the complaint itself, which were as under:-

Firm name GSTN Place State Taxable IGST CGST SGST M/s amount GKM 04BLHP UT Chandigarh 229229144 41261246 0 0 Enterprises A2654R1 Chandigar ZX h Industries 07AHFP Pitampura Delhi 20490724 3688330 0 0 K9402Q1 ZV Sehaj 07CTJPK Keshav Delhi 8314160 1496549 0 0 Trading Co. 9383A1Z Puram D Kabir Steel07GWYP Rani Bagh Delhi 1359296 244673 0 0 Industries S4728B1 ZV Pardeep 07HF1PS New Delhi Delhi 6669033 1200426 0 0 Steel 5917A1Z A SK 07HUKP Rani BaghDelhi 4368549 786339 0 0 Industries S8749R1 Pitum Pura Z2 RS Steel06A9ZPA Panipat Haryana 8421664 0 757950 75795 Traders 4111P1Z 0 M Sai 06APUP Panipat Haryana 4608215 0 414739 41473 Enterprises D8844E1 9 ZL Sanjana 06ASBPH Panipat Haryana 263889 0 1235387 12358 The complainant further had stated that this firm was assigned to Central authorities, and therefore, letter had been written to central authorities to block the ITC (Input Tax Credit). In addition to above, letters were also written to the respective authorities in Haryana, Chandigarh. Uttrakhand, Delhi, Rajasthan, from where purchases had been made by this dealer, and they were requested to block the ITC at their end.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on receipt of above information, the FIR was registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 11 of Central Sales Tax Act and investigation was set into motion. It is the case of the prosecution that once the above mentioned FIR was lodged, the investigation had been taken up.

4. Since the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the above mentioned FIR he filed the present petition alleging:-

a) that the petitioner is registered under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Central GST Act, since 23.02.2018, vide GSTIN 06AILPV7598K1Z4 to carry the business of trading in Iron Scrap (waste pieces or disused articles of wrought iron suitable for reworking).

b) that in normal course of its business, the Petitioner purchases Iron Scr