Gauhati High Court (HC) of bench Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund rejected the petition praying to quash FIR filed against the petitioner for evading tax payment from the government by smuggling coal to different states. The HC stated that they could not find any malice by the investigation agency.
The petitioner, Abdul Kadir filed an application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code,1973 with prayer for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 120(B)/379/420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The High Court has broad authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to issue whatever order it thinks appropriate to avoid abuse of any court’s process or to uphold the interests of justice, even if such an order is not expressly authorised by the Code. The section is frequently used to repair mistakes made by lesser courts in situations where there has been a miscarriage of justice.
The petitioner stated that he is a businessman with his office at Kabaitary, Bongaigaon. The trade name is A.K.S. Traders. He purchases coal from Meghalaya, Byrnihat, Sonapur, for sale in different places.
The petitioner has purchased the coal from Byrnihat and loaded the same in five trucks for transportation to Bihar. The petitioner has paid necessary taxes and other dues to the Government vide Tax invoice through E-way Bill.
The petitioner has in his possession of the required paperwork, such as an Assam tax invoice and coal purchase records. The coal that was loaded into trucks was not stolen. The drivers of the trucks were said to have supplied Tax invoices and E-way bills when the police requested the pertinent paperwork regarding the transportation of coal, but none of these documents were accepted by the police. The petitioner further claimed that the records were destroyed by the officers.
The bench rejected all the submissions made by the petitioner and observed that “the petitioner is alleged with an offence of evading payment of taxes to the Government by smuggling coal to different states. I have considered the magnitude of the offence. This is an offence against the society at large. The document submitted by the petitioner does not even substantiate his averments”.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
