Sachin Kumar vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court considered that the petitioner is a professional tax lawyer and his involvement was limited to providing professional services for the registration of the firm and filing returns. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had no knowledge of the actual business of the firm or its proprietors, and his role was purely professional. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The Court also clarified that it would be open for the Investigating Officer to call upon the petitioner to join the investigation by issuing a written notice if required. No specific GST provisions were explicitly discussed in relation to the bail application, but the underlying FIR concerned allegations of bogus input tax credit utilization.

Facts

The petitioner, Sachin Kumar, a tax lawyer, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 683 dated 13.07.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Randhir Singh, Excise & Taxation Officer, Panipat, alleging that certain firms, including M/s Keshav Enterprises, were involved in creating and utilizing bogus input tax credit by not paying tax on interstate purchases. The investigation revealed that 'C' forms related to M/s Keshav Enterprises, whose proprietor was Pankaj Jain, were cancelled. The petitioner's role, as alleged, was providing professional services to Deepak Jain in filing returns, and he claimed no direct relation or benefit from the firms. The respondents stated that the petitioner, as a tax lawyer, assisted in the firm's registration, and the proprietor's whereabouts were not traceable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a tax lawyer, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 683 dated 13.07.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, given his alleged role in assisting a client with firm registration and tax filings, while denying direct involvement or benefit from alleged bogus input tax credit utilization. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is a professional tax lawyer who merely provided professional services to his client, Deepak Jain, in filing returns and registering the firm. He asserted that he has no direct connection to any of the firms involved in the alleged tax fraud and is not a beneficiary of any illicit activities. He argued that his professional engagement does not implicate him in the criminal charges. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Excise & Taxation Officer, stated that the petitioner, as a tax lawyer, was involved in the registration process of the firm, and a mobile number declared by the proprietor, Pankaj Jain, was associated with the name 'Sonu' on 'Truecaller'. They noted that the proprietor's whereabouts were not traceable, and the firm appeared to be fake. The respondents highlighted the petitioner's professional involvement in the registration of a potentially fake firm.