Anupam Kumar Pathak vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court considered the submissions and the contents of the FIR, acknowledging that the case was registered under both the Indian Penal Code and the JGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the JGST Act is a complete code in itself and Section 132 prescribes punishments for offences. It also observed that Section 134 requires prior sanction from the Commissioner for taking cognizance, which was annexed to the FIR. The Court addressed the petitioner's argument regarding special law by referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Jayant and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court found that the allegations of forging invoices and bills without actual coal transactions, as alleged in the FIR, were settled by the Supreme Court's reasoned judgment. The Court specifically referred to paragraphs 21.4 and 21.5 of the Jayant judgment, which deal with the procedure for lodging FIRs under special acts and the non-applicability of the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act at the FIR stage, and the continuation of IPC proceedings even if offences under the special act are compounded. The Court concluded that these directions were sufficient to dispose of the petition and directed the respondent-State to act in terms of paragraphs 21.4 and 21.5 of the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the prayer in the petition was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Anupam Kumar Pathak, proprietor of M/S Maa Mahamaya Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings. The FIR alleged that the petitioner caused a loss of Rs. 1,33,03,569.00 to the State Revenue by committing fraud using e-way bills and GST returns. The petitioner's enterprise, registered under the JGST Act, 2017, allegedly made purchases from a non-existing taxpayer, M/S Janki Coal Trading, during October, November 2018, and January 2019. This led to a proceeding for reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on March 20, 2020. An inspection revealed irregularities, including the absence of business signage and records. The petitioner failed to produce books of accounts, resulting in rejection of ITC claims and a demand for tax, interest, and penalty. A criminal case was subsequently initiated under the Indian Penal Code and the JGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 120B/406/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(e), and 132(1)(f) of the JGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed, particularly when the JGST Act, 2017, is a special law prescribing its own punishments? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that since the JGST Act, 2017, is a special law with prescribed punishments, the invocation of IPC sections is not attracted. Reliance was placed on Ramesh Chandra Jain & another v. State of Jharkhand. The petitioner also argued that they were made a scapegoat and that M/S Janki Coal Trading, from whom purchases were made, was not made an accused, despite having deposited tax and filed returns. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that criminality is made out, and both Special Law and IPC sections are attracted. Reliance was placed on The State of Maharashtra & another v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & others, which discussed Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the principle that an act can constitute an offence under two different laws, with the offender liable to be prosecuted under either or both, but not punished twice for the same offence. The State also noted that a separate FIR was registered against M/S Janki Coal Trading.