Suresh Kumar Sindhi vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Sindhi, challenged an order dated September 30, 2020, passed by the Commissioner of State GST, along with subsequent notices. The petitioner was implicated in a case concerning illicit manufacturing and packaging of Pan Masala and tobacco products, leading to his arrest. The petitioner claims he was implicated based on a fabricated rent agreement. He filed a complaint case, which resulted in a negative final report. Subsequently, he approached the High Court in a criminal miscellaneous petition, where a learned Single Judge directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to obtain a forensic report on the disputed rent agreement's signatures. The respondent GST Authority objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, citing an efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal.
Held
The Court acknowledged the respondent's objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory appeal. However, considering the ongoing forensic examination of the rent agreement, which was directed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant a temporary stay on recovery proceedings. The Court explicitly stated that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the assessment order itself. The stay was granted for a period of two months, after which the respondent-Authority would be at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings, irrespective of whether the forensic report was received. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order dated September 30, 2020, as argued by the respondent-GST Authority. 2. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order dated September 30, 2020, should be stayed pending the outcome of the forensic examination of the rent agreement, as sought by the petitioner. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that interference by the High Court in the criminal miscellaneous petition, directing a forensic examination of the rent agreement, provided a new basis for his defense, suggesting the possibility of his innocence. He sought a stay on recovery proceedings until the forensic report was obtained and complied with. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent-GST Authority contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 19/09/2024 The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the order dated 30th September 2020 passed by the Commissioner of State GST and, in connection therewith, the petitioner has also challenged the notices dated 20th January 2021, 18th February 2021, 17th September 2021, 25th January 2024, 19th March 2024, 25th April 2024 and 16th May 2024. 2. The petitioner has also made a prayer for a restrain order against the respondents from recovering the penalty imposed upon him by the assessment order dated 30th September 2020 till the order passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4293 of 2022 is complied by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan.
[2024:RJ-JD:38784-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-11841/2024]
At the outset, Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the respondent-GST Authority has raised an objection to the maintainability of this Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of statutory appeal against the assessment order dated 30th September 2020. 4. The petitioner has set up a case that on the basis of a fabricated rent agreement he was implicated in a case vide FIR No.291 of 2015 which was lodged on 23rd June 2015. He therefore filed a complaint case vide C.R. No.435 of 2021 in which a negative final report No.548 of 2021 was submitted; against which he approached this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 4293 of 2022. By an order dated 22nd March 2024, a learned Single Judge of this Court interfered with the final report No.548 of 2021 filed in connection with CR. No.435/2021 and issued the following direction to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan. “8. Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan is directed to pass necessary instructions to the Investigating Agency with regard to comparison of the signature on disputed document and sending the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory.”
Mr. Vivek Firoda, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that interference by this Court with final report No.548 of 2021 gave a new lease of life to the petitioner inasmuch as there is a possibility that the petitioner’s defence may be found true.
As we gathered from the assessment order dated 30th September 2020, the petitioner has been found involved in illicit manufacturing and packaging of Pan Masala; Vimal and Jafri
[2024:RJ-JD:38784-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-11841/2024] Brand and packed tobacco of Ganesh Brand. Because huge quantity of illicit manufactured articles were recovered from House No.156, Tilak Nagar-I at Bhadwasiya in the district of Jodhpur, the petitioner and his father were arrested. Now since the rent agreement has been challenged by the petitioner and a learned Single Judge of this Court has issued a direction to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan for obtaining the forensic report about the genuineness of signature on the rent agreement, we deem it appropriate to stay the recovery proceedings for the next two months. However, we shall make it amply clear that we have not adverted to the merits of the assessment order dated 30th September 2024. 7. We may further observe that whether or not a report of forensic examination is received, on the lapse of 60 days from today i.e. 23rd November 2024 the respondent-Authority may initiate the recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11841/2024 is disposed of.
Stay Petition, if any, is also disposed of. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 5-Arjun/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.