Balwinder Singh v. State Tax Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision:20.12.2021 Balwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State Tax Officer .....Respondent
!
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a complaint case registered under Sections 69, 132(1), a, b and c of the Punjab Goods and Service Act, 2017, Police Station Punjab GST Mobile Wing, Chandigarh-2, at Shambhu, pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh.
As per the allegations contained in the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner along with co-accused was found to have indulged themselves in evasion of the State Tax to the Govt., by flouting bogus firms and showing fake billings and transactions in order to draw the refund of the GST payment, and thereby had caused a loss to the tune of Rs.8.95 crore to the State Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
" petitioner had falsely been implicated in the present case inasmuch as the e-mail Id and phone number as updated with the respondent-department, do not belong to him. In fact, the petitioner opened a firm in the name and style of M/s Suvidha Enterprises and also obtained GST number from the respondent, but the said firm had been used by Prince Dhiman, who happens to be the son of his sister-in-law and adopted by him. The petitioner was not aware about the business transactions of the said firm maintained or looked after by Prince Dhiman.
The petitioner had never transacted any business from the said firm and it was Prince Dhiman, who used to make all the transactions, if any, related to sales and purchase, as recorded on the on-line portal with the respondent. The petitioner had no role to play in the alleged offences. On these premise, the learned counsel prayed that the petitioner be released on bail. It was further contended that ##$ %&'" ( # )* "+, (-. /++0"+"+ #Tarun Bassi Vs. State of Punjab and others 1 !
# 23 3 1 ! )* "+,11 3 1 $ ! 4 # + 1 5 4 $ It was also contended that the case is based on the documentary evidence and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
' relied upon the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by this Court in CRM-M37794-2020. Further reliance was placed upon the orders dated 16.06.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench in CRM-M-42451-2019, dated 18.06.2020 passed in CWP-8268-2020, titled as 'Rajiv Gupta Vs. Union of India and others', by a Division Bench of this Court and dated 15.03.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-3957-2021. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused had caused a huge loss to the Government by evading tax and issuing bogus bills through the bogus firms, to the tune of Rs.8.95 crore.
The accused had committed the crime with the help of three firms, which were directly under their control. Learned State counsel further contended that there was a nexus of more than 30 more firms registered in Punjab, Rajasthan, Delhi and other neighbouring States having common email and phone number, which were directly linked to the petitioner and co-accused Prince Dhiman. It was further contended that coaccused Prince Dhiman is still at large and all efforts are being made to nab him. It was also stated that the aforesaid offence had been committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to the community. It was also stated that the allegations $ 4 #$!#4 4! !
4 1 3 # !4 67!# ( .
$ 8
( # 3 $ "+'9':;(;9( #:,<
3 # # #$
0 $ !4 ( =
5 ##$ %&'"( ) 1## !4 ( ( 1$ #!# $ ##4 ) $ #!4 # #.
$79 : #!# $ 1 # ##1 61 #4 $ 5
! 4+& +"
"+" )# 1 # > # 31 ! 11 $$ 3 # 1 #!!4 >$ ! ! ) ##1 !$ #!#* 5 #? 4 ! $ ; < #> #( ?
4 $ ) 1 # 4! ( 1## #3 1 ( 614! ## ! !* 20.12.2021
>
- ?>$@ A?. - !#@ A?.