Ashok Sukhija vs. State Of Haryana

[247] Ashok Su State of H [247-2] Mahesh K State of H Coram : Present: PANKAJ [1] for grant registered 406/409/4 District S [2] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P AT CHANDIGA CRM-M-7 Date of D ukhija versus Haryana CRM Kumar @ Mahesh Bansal versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P Mr. Harpreet Singh Rakhra, A in CRM-M-7428-2024. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocat in CRM-M-26171-2024. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta *** J JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present petitions have been f of regular bail in case bearing d for the offences p 419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B irsa. As per contents of the FIR, it ha “ FIR NO. 156, DATED 24.10 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 47 ODHAN, DISTRICT SIRSA PUNJAB AND HARYANA ARH 7428-2024 (O&M) Decision : 31.05.2024 …Petitioner ….Respondent M-M-26171-2024 (O&M) …Petitioner ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the petitioner te for the petitioner a, AAG, Haryana. filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. g FIR No.156 dated 24.10.2020 punishable under Sections B IPC at Police Station Odhan, as been alleged as under :- 0.2020, UNDER SECTIONS 406, 4 71, 120-B IPC, POLICE STATI . 0 s , 409, ION RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7 connected 7428-2024 and d case From Excise taxation offic Superintendent of police Sirsa Regarding registration of FIR Payre lal R/o H.no. 43 New H sirsa. prop M/s R.K Trading Village Odhan. Memo On the s a firm in the name of M/s R.K is found involved in the claimi tax credit. During the assessm fraudulently obtained refund o fabricated documents which regarding inter-state sale to R sale of Cigarettes and C form 12117631101213. These refund mentioned C 13 forms procu perusal of the record, it has bee forged and false documents of s making any actual movement state sale, dealer has obtained This dealer has claimed inpu purchases of Cigarettes and fu @2% in the course of intersta then Assessing Authority while there is no physical moveme prepared only to obtain refund Sh. Neeraj Garg ETO in such involved in only preparing pap course of inter-state transactio goods, In this way, by claimi concessional rate of tax agains fabricated documents, have cau -2- cer ward no. 6 Sirsa. To a. No. 3618 dated 11.12.19 Subj R against Sh. Rakesh Bansal S/o Housing Board colony Barnala r Co., Shop no. 01, Opp Anaj Ma subject cited above it is informed t Trading Co., Sirsa TIN 06522919 ing bogus refund on account of in ment period 2011-12, this dealer of Rs. 2324377/- by using false a includes sale invoices of cigare Rajasthan, VAT D- 3 forms show ms bearing No. 12117277311213 a ds were obtained by using the ab ured from the dealers of Delhi. en found that actually dealer has u sale(as mentioned above) and with of goods during the course of in the refund to the tune of Rs.232437 ut tax credit @21% on account urther shown disposal of these go ate sale against C forms. Further, e framing the re-assessment held t ent of goods and papers have b d. He relied upon the equity made h type of cases and these dealers pers only to obtain refund and in ons, there is no physical movemen ing false ITC and claiming sales st the C forms by submitting false a used revenue loss amounting to The ject Sh. oad andi that 369 nput has and ettes wing and bove On used hout nter 77/- t of oods the that been e by are the nt of s at and RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7 connected [3] was poste approved relevant t regular ba observing 7428-2024 and d case Rs.40089468/- to the Stare Exc dated 28.04.2016. It is acco against Sh. Rakesh Bansal S/ Housing Board colony Barnal Co., Shop no. 01, Opp Anaj M provisions/sections of IPC and investigation in the matter as Taxation Officer Ward no. 6 Si the following for informatio Commissioner, Haryana Panc Commissioner (ST) Sirsa. Sure Ward no. 6 Sirsa. ” Learned counsel for the petit ed as ETO and had passed fina by his Superior namely Gopi Ch ime posted as ATC. Gopi Chan ail vide order dated 18.12.2023 g as under :- “5. On the specific query bein the State as to what was the refund to the accused-firm as on instructions from the Inves petitioner used to charge 2% to 6. Having heard rival con finds that the allegation in the claimed refund wrongly by documents of sale. Thus the relates to error in judgment. Th -3- chequer as per revision order No.0 ordingly, requested to register F /o Sh. Payre lal R/o H.No. 43, N la road Sirsa. prop M/s R.K Trad Mandi Village Odhan as per relev any other penal law if applicable, s per law. Surender Godara Exc irsa Endst No. A copy is forwarded on please 1 The Excise Taxat chkula. 2. The Dy Excise Taxat ender Godara Excise Taxation Offi tioner submits that the petitioner al assessment order which was hand Chaudhary, who was at the nd Chaudhary stands admitted to passed in CRM-M-59913-2023 ng asked to Counsel representing role of the petitioner in issuing unearthed in the investigation, he stigating Officer submits that the o 3% commission on refund. ntention of the parties, this Court e FIR is w.r.t. the assessee having y submitting forged and false role of the petitioner primarily here is no such allegation that the 01A FIR New ding vant for cise d to tion tion ficer r s e o 3 g g e e t g e y RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7 connected [4] CRM-M-5 whereby t 7428-2024 and d case petitioner acted in cahoots w illegally. 7. It is not disputed by already stands presented. Inve date the evidence w.r.t. meetin and the main accused remains a 8. The petitioner is stated earning pension from the Stat petitioner served State with c antecedents. 9. In view of above this Co prolong custody of the pet Resultantly, the present petiti ordered to be released on bail o bonds to the satisfaction of concerned.” He further relies upon orde 52902-2023 titled as Ashok S the petitioner stands admitted to “4. On behalf of petitioner- ld. counsel that petitioner had 02.07.2013, whereas the case year 2011-12. It is Sh. D.P Taxation Officer, who was physical verification of the firm documents of the firm. It is conducted the necessary verif simply passed the final ass assessment done and the refun and in this way, petitioner was allegations made in the FIR. -4- with the assessee to award refund State Counsel that the Challan estigation is complete and as on ng of minds between the petitioner amiss. to be 67 years old Senior Citizen te. It is also not disputed that the lean record and has no criminal ourt finds that there is no reason to titioner as a punitive measure. ion is allowed. The petitioner is on his furnishing bail bonds/surety the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate er dated 19.12.2023 passed in Sukhija Vs. State of Haryana bail observing as under :- -Ashok Sukhija, it is contended by d joined his services at Sirsa on in hand pertains to refund for the P. Beniwal, the then Excise and responsible for conducting the m, examine the returns and verify s said D.P. Beniwal, who had ification and that petitioner had essment order on the basis of nd order issued by D.P. Beniwal, not concerned in any way with the d n n r n e l o s y e n a y n e d e y d d f e RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.31 06:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7 connected 7428-2024 and d case 5. (i) Apart from above, ld have drawn attention towards exchequer to the tune of Rs.29, the respondent/State only on 11 was passed, as is evident from more than 5 years from the revision, that letter was sent Sirsa to register the case and year, the FIR has been lodged there is an unexplained delay o of alleged commission of the off (ii) Ld. counsels further con upon documentary evidence; concluded and there is no pr absconding from justice and s inasmuch as co-accused Gop been allowed bail by this Court 6. Opposing the bail petitio petitioners committed economic exchequer to the tune of more allegations make out violation the same time, there is nothin investigate a crime under t allegations leveled in the FI offences under the IPC. Ld. Sta fabrication of documents on th as they are involved in evadin credit on the basis of forged rejecting both the petitions. 7. I have considered subm appraised the record carefully. 8. A Co-ordinate Bench of decided on 16.05.2023 titled As -5- d. counsel for both the petitioners, s the fact that loss to the State 29,359/- had come to the notice of