Prantosh Gogoi vs. The State Of Assam
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mr. Prantosh Gogoi, proprietor of M/s Kanaklata Enterprise, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 1058/2022. An FIR was lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tinsukia, alleging that the petitioner generated false invoices for exports to Dubai, thereby defrauding the taxing authority and the government exchequer, causing a revenue loss in crores. The State Tax authority has initiated proceedings under the GST Act concerning this matter. The High Court perused the case diary and heard the counsels for both parties.
Held
The Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The allegations pertain to forged documents in business transactions, and the State Tax authority has already seized the matter and initiated proceedings under the GST Act. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with a local surety of like amount upon arrest. Conditions for bail include appearing before the Investigating Officer within seven days, cooperating with the investigation, depositing his passport, not leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the police station without permission, and not tampering with the investigation or influencing witnesses. The Investigating Officer can seek cancellation of bail if any condition is violated. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 1058/2022, which involves allegations of forgery of documents, cheating, and causing revenue loss to the government exchequer, potentially under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the GST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest. The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond seeking bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, presented the case diary. The judgment does not explicitly detail the State's arguments beyond opposing anticipatory bail and highlighting the ongoing GST proceedings.
Sections Cited
GST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 21-04-2023
Heard Mr. S Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RR Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner namely, Mr. Prantosh Gogoi, seeking anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Page No.# 2/3 Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 1058/2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 902/2022 under Sections 120(B)/193/198/406/420/468/471 of the IPC.
An FIR dated 29.10.2022 was lodged by the informant, one John Sona, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tinsukia alleging that the petitioner, who is the Proprietor of one M/s Kanaklata Enterprise has generated false invoices and has used these documents to export to Dubai and thereby has cheated the Taxing authority and also Government Exchequer. Accordingly, the petitioner has caused a loss of revenue to the Government Exchequer in crores.
The case diary was called for and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the same before this Court today.
The case diary has been carefully perused and the learned counsels for the parties have also been heard.
This Court is of the view that the allegations made against the petitioner pertains to documents stated to have been forged by the petitioner in respect of his business transactions. The State Tax authority has already ceased of the matter and proceeding under the GST Act has also been initiated.
Under this circumstances, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in respect of the petitioner. Therefore, in the event of the petitioner’s arrest in connection with the aforementioned case, he be released on a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with a local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority. The bail granted however, is subjected to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) days from today and co-operate in the investigation as and when required;
Page No.# 3/3 (ii) The petitioner shall deposit his Passport before the Investigating Officer till completion of investigation. (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial juri iction of the police station, without prior written permission from Officer-in-Charge, Tinsukia Police Station. (iv) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and (v)That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer in connection to this Police Station Case.
If any of the conditions are found to be violated then the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.
Anticipatory bail petition is accordingly disposed of. Return the Case Diary.
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.