Anuj Kumar Yadav vs. The State Of Assam
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC in connection with BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 5/2023, previously Basistha P.S. Case No. 210/2022. The allegations stem from a written FIR lodged by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, accusing the petitioner of defaulting on Goods & Services Tax payments. The core accusation is that the petitioner, through his firm M/s An-Di Enterprises, created fake invoices for coal transactions without actual sales, thereby facilitating wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) to other entities like M/s Sanju Enterprises, M/s. Bahubali Enterprises, M/s Navkar Enterprises, and M/s Chanda Prabhu Coal. A significant mismatch was noted between GSTR-2A records (Rs. 51.88 crores in purchases) and E-way bill records (Rs. 62.18 crores in purchases), indicating potential tax evasion amounting to crores of rupees.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC at this stage. The reasoning was based on the grave nature of the alleged offense, which involves tax evasion amounting to crores of rupees through paper transactions and the creation of fake invoices to wrongfully avail Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Court acknowledged the existence of incriminating materials against the petitioner, as evidenced by the FIR lodged by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes and the issuance of a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.PC. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC cannot be exercised in an untrammelled manner, and granting pre-arrest bail could adversely affect the ongoing investigation. Therefore, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected. The Court directed the Case Diary to be sent back.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC, considering the allegations of tax evasion and economic offense, and the potential impact on the ongoing investigation? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest if he were to appear with relevant documents before the Investigating Officer (IO). The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments beyond the implicit request for bail. Revenue/State's Argument: The State, represented by the Addl. P.P., raised serious objections, characterizing the tax evasion of crores of rupees as an economic offense. They contended that incriminating materials exist in the Case Diary against the petitioner and that granting pre-arrest bail could adversely affect the investigation. The State highlighted the creation of fake invoices without actual sales to pass on wrongful tax credit, citing specific discrepancies between GSTR-2A and E-way bill records, and a peculiar transaction where M/s An-Di Enterprises allegedly purchased coal from M/s Bahubali Enterprises for Rs. 50.17 lacs and simultaneously sold goods to M/s Bahubali for Rs. 4.17 lacs, suggesting an ulterior motive and paper-only transactions.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 120B, Section 468, Section 471, Section 420, Section 91
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 20-04-2023
Heard Mr. B.S. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
By this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.PC],
Page No.# 2/3 the petitioner Anuj Kumar Yadav has been granted interim protection vide order dated 22.02.2023 in connection with BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 5/2023 under Sections 120B/468/471/420 IPC. Earlier this case was registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 210/2022 under aforesaid sections of law.
Heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for Respondent State of Assam.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he has defaulted in payment of tax under the provision of Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. has raised serious objection stating that transactions were carried on by the petitioner through paper but in reality no transactions were completed and in this manner the petitioner has been evading payment of taxes to the tune of crores of rupees causing loss to the exchequer of the State. A written FIR was lodged by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes alleging that the petitioner created fake invoices without actual sale of goods just to pass on the benefit of ITC to the receiving parties. The M/s An-Di Enterprises has been making fake bills to pass on wrongful tax credit to M/s Sanju Enterprises, M/s. Bahubali Enerprises, M/s Navkar Enterprises and M/s Chanda Prabhu Coal without actual purchase of coal. According to the purchase record of tax payer from records of GSTR-2A it is found that M/s An-Di Enterprises run by Sri Anuj Kumar Yadav had purchased coal for Rs. 51.88 crores, whereas, as per E-way bill records, he made a purchase of Rs. 62.18 crores. This huge mismatch between GSTR-2A and E-way bills clearly indicates that the party has obtained fake invoice involving Input Tax Credit (ITC) without there being any actual purchase of coal just for the wrongful benefit of tax credit to evade payment of tax to the government through ITC. It is also alleged that the firm M/s An-Di Enterprises purchased coal from M/s Bahubali Enterprises worth Rs. 50.17 lacs and at the same time sold the goods of Ms. Bahubali at Rs. 4.17 lacs. It is apparent that there was ulterior motive behind such transaction which was made only through paper. There are other allegations also against the petitioner of having evaded payment of tax.
The learned Addl. P.P. has raised serious objection stating that tax evasion amounting to crores of rupees is an economic offence. It is submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. The petitioner has appeared before the IO.
Page No.# 3/3
It is true that there are indeed incriminating materials against the petitioner. The FIR has been lodged by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax with direct allegations against the petitioner. A notice under Section 91 was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner has further pressed for bail as he is apprehending that if he is to be present with the relevant documents, he will be taken into custody.
I have considered the offence alleged against the petitioner and the import of the Section under which he is booked. The petitioner is alleged to have evaded tax by alleged transaction of goods only through paper transaction. The petitioner is booked under a grave offence which does not entitle him to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC at this stage. Provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC cannot be exercised in an untrammelled manner. Alleged evasion of taxes is a grave offence. It appears that investigation may be adversely affected if the petitioner is insulated by pre-arrest bail.
In view of my foregoing discussion petition is rejected at this stage. Send back 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.