Satya Narayan Sinha vs. The State Of Jharkhand
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Satya Narayan Sinha, is an accused in Dhansar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2020. The allegation is that Sarbasni Narayani Traders, owned by Vikky Banerjee, failed to deposit GST for January to May 2019, causing a revenue loss of Rs. 15,90,22,138/- through ITC benefits. A search revealed Vikky Banerjee's business was a mere Chowmin stall, and he claimed the petitioner obtained his PAN card, Aadhar card, and other documents under the guise of a chain marketing business, promising a Rs. 10,000/- monthly commission. The petitioner was arrested on December 21, 2020. The prosecution alleges the petitioner fraudulently used Vikky Banerjee's documents to evade tax.
Held
The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail. The Court found that the disclosure made by Vikky Banerjee appeared to be substantiated during the investigation. It was confirmed that Vikky Banerjee merely runs a Chowmin stall. The bank account of Vikky Banerjee indicated that transactions were made by the petitioner. The Court concluded that the petitioner, by using Vikky Banerjee's documents, had fraudulently evaded tax, causing a loss to the state exchequer. The Court also noted that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent, being an accused in Putki P. S. Case No. 107 of 2019, although he was granted bail in that case. Considering the nature of the allegations, the Court was not inclined to grant bail at this stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the allegations of fraudulent tax evasion and the evidence gathered during the investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of bail and evidence). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that Vikky Banerjee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarbasni Narayani Trader and is the person directly involved in the non-deposit of GST. The petitioner claims to have been implicated solely based on Vikky Banerjee's disclosure. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that since the competent authority granted sanction for prosecution only against M/s. Narayani Traders and Vikky Banerjee, and not against the petitioner, he cannot be prosecuted. The petitioner has been in custody since December 21, 2020. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposes the bail prayer, submitting that the bank statement of Vikky Banerjee substantiates the allegations that transactions were made by the petitioner on different dates. The State argues that Vikky Banerjee was framed by the petitioner, who, by obtaining his personal documents, committed the fraud. Therefore, the bail prayer should be rejected.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5849 of 2021 --------- Satya Narayan Sinha ... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P. --------- 04/14.12.2021 Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored. Heard Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2020. It has been alleged that Sarbasni Narayani Traders had not deposited the GST for the months from January, 2019 to May 2019 and for non-deposit of GSTR-3B the State was deprived of its revenue and the businessman got a benefit of Rs.15,90,22,138/- from ITC. On a search conducted in the business place, it was found that no business of any type was running in the name of the businessman Vikky Banerjee who disclosed that he was not aware about the non-deposit of GST and that he is merely having a Chowmin Stall from where he earns his livelihood. It has been alleged that Vikky Banerjee had disclosed that the petitioner had come to his shop and had stated that he was involved in chain marketing business and had requested him to give his PAN card, Aadhar Card, registered mobile SIM and photo etc. and he had also generated one code in the name of Vikky Banerjee with a further assurance that he will be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as commission by the petitioner. It was, therefore, suspected that the petitioner by fraudulently taking authorization from him and by taking all his documents had committed such offence. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was Vikky Banerjee who is the proprietor of M/s. Sarbasni Narayani Trader and who was the person involved in non-deposit of the GST amount. It has further been stated that the petitioner has been implicated on the disclosure made by Vikky Banerjee. Learned counsel further submits that the -2- competent authority had granted sanction for prosecution against M/s. Narayani Traders and its proprietor Vikky Banerjee and since there was no sanction against the petitioner, he could not have been prosecuted in the present case. It has further been stated that the petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2020. Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has stated that the Bank statement of Vikky Banerjee was obtained which substantiated the allegations that transactions were made on different dates by the petitioner. Learned Spl.P.P. also submits that Vikky Banerjee has been framed by the petitioner as it was disclosed that Vikky Banerjee merely runs a Chowmin Stall but a fraud has been committed by the petitioner by obtaining his personal documents and in such circumstances, therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner should be rejected. It appears that the disclosure made by Vikky Banerjee does seem to have been substantiated in course of investigation and it was detected that Vikky Banerjee merely runs a Chowmin Stall at Hirapur, Dhanbad. The Bank account of Vikky Banerjee also indicates that transactions were made in his account by the petitioner. It, therefore, clearly appears that the petitioner by using the documents of Vikky Banerjee had fraudulently evaded tax causing loss of revenue to the state exchequer. It also appears from the impugned order that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent being an accused in Putki P. S. Case No. 107 of 2019 though the petitioner has been granted bail in the said case by this Court in B.A. No.1543 of 2021. Regard being had to the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected at this stage.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.