Rana Milk Food Private LTD. And Anr. vs. Bansal Milk Chiilling Centre

Facts

The petitioners, Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. and another, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned trial court. This order allowed an amendment application filed by the respondent/complainant, Bansal Milk Chilling Centre, to amend a complaint (COMA-1123-2022, NACT/85/2023) dated 11.04.2022, after cognizance had already been taken. The petitioners argued that the amendment changed the nature of the complaint. The original complaint and legal notice stated that the respondent dealt in deshi ghee and other milk products, not milk itself. The petitioners contended that the amendment to replace 'deshi ghee' with 'milk' was an attempt to avoid GST liability on deshi ghee, which attracts 12% GST, while milk is exempt.

Held

The Court held that the amendment sought by the respondent/complainant was not a mere typographical error but had a wider impact, fundamentally changing the nature of the complaint. The Court noted that the original complaint and legal notice consistently stated that the respondent dealt in deshi ghee (oil) and other milk products, with no mention of dealing in milk itself. The Court found support in the petitioners' submission that the amendment was motivated by GST implications, as deshi ghee attracts 12% GST, whereas fresh milk is exempt. Annexure P-8, detailing GST rates, confirmed that fresh milk (HSN 0401) is not taxed, while butter and other fats derived from milk, including ghee (HSN 0405), attract 12% GST. Therefore, the Court concluded that the amendment was not a simple error but an attempt to circumvent GST liability. The Court found that the respondent's assertion that 'milk product' includes 'milk' was not substantiated by their consistent stance in the complaint and legal notice. Consequently, the impugned order allowing the amendment was quashed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment sought by the respondent/complainant, to replace 'deshi ghee' with 'milk' in the complaint, is permissible after cognizance has been taken, and if it changes the nature of the complaint, thereby causing prejudice to the accused/petitioners, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the amendment fundamentally alters the complaint's nature, which is impermissible after cognizance. They contended that the respondent's original case was solely about deshi ghee and milk products, and the amendment to include 'milk' was a stratagem to evade GST liability on deshi ghee (12% GST) by substituting it with milk (no GST). They relied on the principle that amendments cannot be used to fill lacunae. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the amendments only pertained to the products sold and did not change the complaint's nature. They relied on 'S.R.Sukumar vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram' and 'Rakesh Kumar vs. Jasbir Singh' to argue that amendments are permissible if they do not alter the complaint's nature and that any dispute regarding the product can be addressed during cross-examination. They also submitted that 'milk product' encompasses 'milk' and that the change was a typographical error.