Tayo Takam vs. The State Of Assam And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tayo Takam, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with BI (E.O)P.S. Case No. 14/2023, registered under Sections 120(B)/419/420/468/471 of the IPC. The case originated from an FIR lodged on June 19, 2023, by an Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati. The FIR alleged that M/s Amit Traders, a non-existent dealer located at an OYO Hotel in Guwahati, purchased taxable goods worth Rs. 32.35 crore from M/s Shree Ram Enterprises, a taxpayer in Arunachal Pradesh, on March 31, 2023. M/s Amit Traders subsequently sold these goods to other taxpayers in Arunachal Pradesh. It was further alleged that M/s Shree Ram Enterprise wrongfully claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 116 crore, out of which Rs. 5.91 crore was passed on to M/s Amit Traders. M/s Amit Traders obtained GST registration by furnishing false documents to defraud the government.
Held
The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, Tayo Takam. The Court considered the materials collected by the Investigating Officer so far, the nature and gravity of the offense, and the punishment prescribed. Crucially, the Court also took into account the cooperation extended by the petitioner to the investigating agency. Based on these factors, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the applicant did not appear to be warranted in this case. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The bail was subject to conditions including making himself available for interrogation, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and not leaving the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior permission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with BI (E.O)P.S. Case No. 14/2023, considering the allegations of fraud and revenue evasion under Sections 120(B)/419/420/468/471 of the IPC? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he had received a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C., produced all relevant documents on December 30, 2023, is innocent, not involved in the alleged offense, and is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. Therefore, the petition for pre-arrest bail should be allowed. Revenue's Contention: The State respondent (represented by the Addl. Public Prosecutor) submitted that while the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had collected some materials supporting the FIR allegations, the I.O. could not ascertain whether the applicant knowingly received fake ITC. Based on the materials in the case diary, the State opposed the petition.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 91 Cr.P.C., Sections 120(B)/419/420/468/471 of IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 02-02-2024 Heard Mr. G. Phukan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/4 Apprehending arrest in connection with BI (E.O)P.S. Case No. 14/2023, under Sections 120(B)/ 419/ 420/ 468/ 471 of IPC, corresponding to G.R.Case No 4425/2023, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant, namely, Tayo Takam for grant of pre-arrest bail. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by Sonaram Langthasa, Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati on 19.6.2023. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that M/s Amit Traders said to have purchased taxable goods from M/s Shree Ram Enterprises registered in Arunachal Pradesh, amounting to Rs. 32.35 Cr. with tax implication amounting to Rs. 5.91 Cr. And the entire purchase was made by M/s Amit Traders from the said tax payer of Arunachal Pradesh on 31.03.2023, in 216 numbers of invoices and M/s Amit Traders have declared to have sold the goods, so purchased from Arunachal Pradesh on the same date to some other taxpayers registered in Arunachal Pradesh and during inquiry it has been found that M/s Amit Traders located at OYO Hotel, Athgaon, Subhas Road, Guwahati, is a non-existent dealer and whereabouts of the proprietor, Shri Amit Sharma is not known and it is also known from further inquiry that M/s Shree Ram Enterprise has wrongfully claimed Input Tax Credit [ITC] amounting to Rs. 116 Cr. out of which Rs. 5.91 Cr. has been passed on to M/s Amit Traders, who in turn, has passed on ITC to other firms located in Arunachal Pradesh and the M/s Amit Traders has obtained GST registration by furnishing false/fabricated documents with criminal intent to defraud the Government of its legitimate revenue. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has received one notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C and pursuant to the said notice, he has produced all the relevant documents on 30.12.2023 and that the applicant is Page No.# 3/4 innocent and in no way involved with the offence alleged and he is also ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. Mr. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the I.O. has collected some materials, in support of the allegation made in the FIR, but, the I.O. could not ascertain as to whether the applicant has knowingly received fake ITC or not and in view of the materials available in the case diary, Mr. Lahkar has opposed the petition . Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully perused the petition and the documents placed on record . In view of the materials collected so far in the case diary and also in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment for the same, and in view of the co-operation being extended by the accused to the investigating agency, his custodial interrogation of the applicant seems to be not warranted herein this case and accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.Accordingly it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with BI (E.O)P.S. Case No. 14/2023, under Sections 120(B)/ 419/ 420/ 468/ 471 of IPC, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond of Rs.50,000/-with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions:
That the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;
That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and Page No.# 4/4
That the applicant shall not leave the juri iction of the learned CJM, Kamrup(M), Guwahati without prior permission.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.