IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16039 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.6.2010 Om Parkash …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on an application submitted by Mr. HPS Ghotra, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-2. It has been alleged by the complainant that the petitioner has been doing bogus sales in the name of M/s Nishant Sales (India). The said Firm is the ownership of the petitioner and he filed returns in the office of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for the period from 1.4.2007 to 30.6.2009. On scrutiny of the same, it was found that the Firm had shown purchase of Rs.41.72 crore in the Year 2007-2008 and Rs. 95.41 crore Crl. Misc. No. M-16039 of 2010 [2] in the year 2008-09. As per the report of the Excise and Taxation Officer, the Firm M/s Nishant Sales (India) had done purchase of approximately Rs.136 crore in two years which was all bogus/unauthorized. The registration number of the firm had been cancelled. It is alleged that in order to evade the tax of the Government, the firm had shown/entered/bogus/unauthorized sales in their books and in this manner, they had evaded the Government revenue. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of the allegations of evasion of VAT tax, the department can recover double the amount of alleged evasion/grabbing of VAT tax. The Firm of the petitioner filed quarterly returns of its business transactions i.e. sale/purchase and the tax liabilities. If there was a lapse or evasion, the same could have been brought to the notice of the Firm and the Firm would have made good the deficiency of its tax liabilities. Now, after a gap of three years such allegations have been levelled. It is also submitted that no Firm has taken the VAT refund. Thus, the question of evasion of tax does not arise. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the case involves of evasion of Rs.136 crore of tax and the petitioner has forged tax entries of showing the purchase. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 20.4.2010. At present, he is in judicial custody and is not required for interrogation or investigation. Nothing was recovered from him and the case is based on documentary evidence. The prosecution is to establish its case on the basis of material and evidence on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-16039 of 2010 [3] Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is likely to tamper with the investigation. However, in view of the fact that it is based on documentary evidence and the documents have been taken in possession by the police, the said circumstance is quite unfounded. In the circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE June 29, 2010 amit