Crl.Misc No M- 22065 of 2010 Rajeev Dutta v. State of Punjab Present: Mr.Deepender Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. *** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Rajeev Dutta for grant of regular bail in case FIR 173 dated 25.6.2010 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued in the case on 12.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Manoj Kumar and his name does not figure in the FIR. Even in the disclosure statement made by co-accused Manoj Kumar, the allegations are that the firm was given on rent and bogus bills and receipts were issued by the petitioner and the co-accused and the same has been done just to evade tax in order to claim certain benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the most it can be a case of tax evasion as per Punjab Value Added Tax Act. Sections 52 to 61 deals with the said provisions. There is a provision for penalty and in case there is failure to pay tax, heavy penalty can be imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that till date, no assessment has been made and nowhere it has come on Crl.Misc No M- 22065 of 2010 [2] record that it is a case of evasion of duty or some benefits have been taken on the basis of those receipts/bills allegedly issued by the petitioner and the co-accused. There is no record available to connect the present petitioner that the firm was given on rent. The petitioner is neither owner nor partner or connected in any manner with the alleged firm and is also not involved with the alleged offence. The petitioner is in custody since 2nd JUly, 2010. Challan has been presented in the Court and now nothing is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is ready to face the proceedings pending before the trial Court and to join assessment proceedings to be initiated by the Assessing Authority. Mr. R.S.Rawat, learned AAG, Punjab opposes the bail on the ground that as per disclosure statement made by co-accused Manoj Kumar, the firm was given on rent and bogus bills/receipts were prepared by the present petitioner and other accused just to take benefit of Input Tax Credit. It is not a simple case of evasion of duty but the petitioner has taken benefit on the basis of forged document and he is indulging in tax evasion of the government and certain documents have been recovered to show that the present petitioner has been running the affairs of the said firm i.e. M/s Chetna Ispat Udyog indirectly through Manoj Kumar. It is a case where the petitioner and other co-accused have been taking illegal and unlawful benefits on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and are causing loss to the State exchequer by evading tax. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Crl.Misc No M- 22065 of 2010 [3] parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on the file. The allegations against the petitioner are that he in connivance with other co-accused had forged certain receipts/bills and availed certain benefits and the firm was being run by the present petitioner on rent basis. As far as allegations against the present petitioner are concerned, learned counsel for the State has not been able to show from any of the documents available on the record or record brought by the Investigating Officer or Department of Excise and Taxation in spite of giving various opportunities to show that the firm was given on rent as neither an agreement to this fact has been shown nor any other document has been produced in the Court to connect the present petitioner with the alleged evasion of duty. As per provisions contained in the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, if a person fails to pay the amount of tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act, he shall be liable to pay, in addition to the tax and the interest payable by him, a penalty, at the rate of two percent per month on the tax so due. Moreover, a special enactment is there with regard to imposition of penalty. No assessment has been made by the Assessing Authority and has not imposed any penalty so far. The Assessing Authority was also not stopped by any order or authority to impose any penalty and inspite of that, no penalty has been imposed, if it was a case of imposition of penalty. Now challan has been presented and petitioner is in custody since 2nd July, 2010 and no purpose would be served by keeping the present petitioner behind Crl.Misc No M- 22065 of 2010 [4] the bars. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner Rajeev Dutta is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. However, it is made clear that any opinion expressed here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) October 04, 2010 JUDGE raghav