Saurav Jain & Anr vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr

Held

The Court held that the FIR, as lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax of the Bureau of Investigation, Unit-I, discloses sufficient materials leading to a cognizable offense. Therefore, the Court found no reason to invoke the provision of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR. The Court acknowledged the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioners for granting liberty to raise all issues before the Trial Court. Consequently, the revisional application was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to raise the pleas taken in the revisional application before the learned Trial Court at the time of consideration of the charge. The Court did not decide on the merits of the allegations but allowed the petitioners to present their defense at the appropriate stage.

Facts

The petitioners, Sri Saurav Jain & Anr., are challenging a First Information Report (FIR) filed in connection with G.R. No. 615 of 2015, arising from Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 107 of 2015 dated 24.03.2015. The FIR was lodged under Sections 93(6)/93(7) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with Sections 120B/403/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceeding was initiated by the Special Officer of the Bureau of Investigation, Unit-I, against the petitioners for allegedly attempting to reduce tax liability by claiming inadmissible input tax credit. The FIR alleges that the petitioners forged invoices showing transportation of goods to different companies, with these consignments found to be fabricated without actual transportation, to claim statutorily inadmissible input tax credit. An investigation was conducted, and a charge-sheet was submitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) in connection with G.R. No. 615 of 2015, arising out of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 107 of 2015 dated 24.03.2015, under Sections 93(6)/93(7) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with Sections 120B/403/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners sought to quash the FIR. While not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the implication is that they argued the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offense or that the proceedings were otherwise vitiated. They also sought liberty to raise all issues before the Trial Court. Revenue's contention: The State, through the learned APP and counsel, argued that the FIR, as lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax of the Bureau of Investigation, Unit-I, disclosed sufficient materials leading to a cognizable offense. No specific provisions or precedents were cited by the State in this excerpt.