The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of tax evasion.
The FIR was the result of information received by the vigilance bureau against the person Vijay Kumar resident of Khanna working in the field of transportation within cities of Khanna, Ludhiana, and others.
On 5th March, 2020, Vijay Kumar on his mobile to inform that he had delivered a bribe in district Moga, Faridkot, and Ferozepur and asked as to whether Vijay Kumar will deliver the money to the petitioner, Ravi Nandan, Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO), Fazilka or he should deliver.
There are other conversations with regard to amounts of money being paid to various officers and officials and a separate bribe being given to the AETC, Fazilka. Instructions were given by Vijay Kumar to check the computer with regard to payments already made to some officers.
There is a conversation with the lady officer stating that whatsoever was settled, Vijay Kumar is not backing from it and she should not harass by obstructing vehicles.
The lady officer stated that she has already allowed more vehicles to go than the settled number. The telephonic calls reveal that there are other transporters and passers involved in similar activities, one of them is named as Shinda.
It was alleged that the petitioner was indulging in tax evasion in connivance with the officers of the Excise and Taxation Department. It was also alleged that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there is no checking or verification of the documents or the goods while being transported to and from the State of Punjab. Heavy monthly amounts were being paid as bribes to the officers and officials of the taxation department.
The petitioner argued that apart from the conversation as to whether Vijay Kumar will send the amount to the petitioner or the other person should give, there is nothing against the petitioner in FIR. There is no proof of any payment made. It is further submitted that the petitioner retired on 31st March, 2020 whereas FIR is of August 2020.
The court noted that the nature of the allegation of evasion of GST requires a deeper probe. There are far-reaching ramifications which may vary from allowing input credit/ MODVAT of tax not paid to the Government to an eventuality that the credit of tax paid on some other product is used for something else. Not only this, someone later in the chain in spite of being a bona fide purchaser not aware of the earlier misdeed in the chain yet will have to suffer the consequences.
Therefore, the single judge bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan while noting that there is alleged connivance of the transporters, passers, and the officials to facilitate the evasion of tax, which is very serious, refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
