White Collar felonies are more serious than offences like Murder, Dacoity etc.: Bombay High Court

 on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 1Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1715 OF 2020Mr. Tejas Pravin Dugad Aged: 29 years Occupation: Business Indian Inhabitant Resident at: 27 Vasant Baug Society Bibwewadi Pune 411037.… PETITIONERV E R S U S1.Union of India through the Ministry ofFinance Department of Revenue RoomNo. 46 North Block New Delhi 110 001.2.Directorate General of GST Intelligence(DGGI)1st & 2nd Floor Wing Number 06 West Block 08 RK Puram New Delhi 110066.3.Chief Commissioner of CGST NagpurNashik Commissionerate Ahmednagar Division Post Box No.81 GST Bhavan Civil Lines Telengkhedi Road Nagpur 440001.4.State of Maharashtra through the Director General of Police Chhatrapati Shivaji MaharajMarg Colaba Mumbai 400001.… RESPONDENTS...Mr. Makrand D. Adkar Senior Counsel with Mr. P. B. Shirsath withMr. Aashit A. Kankariya with Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar with Mr. HarshAgrawal with Mr. Sanket S. Bora Advocate for Petitioner. on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 2Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtMr. A. G. Talhar Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.Mr. A. V. Deshmukh APP for Respondent No.4.…ANDCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1716 OF 2020Mr. Gaurav Pramod Dugad Aged: 31 years Occupation: Business Indian Inhabitant Resident at: 28 Vasant Baug Society Bibwewadi Pune 411037.… PETITIONERV E R S U S1.Union of India through the Ministry ofFinance Department of Revenue RoomNo. 46 North Block New Delhi 110 001.2.Directorate General of GST Intelligence(DGGI)1st & 2nd Floor Wing Number 06 West Block 08 RK Puram New Delhi 110066.3.Chief Commissioner of CGST NagpurNashik Commissionerate Ahmednagar Division Post Box No.81 GST Bhavan Civil Lines Telengkhedi Road Nagpur 440001.4.State of Maharashtra through the Director General of Police Chhatrapati Shivaji MaharajMarg Colaba Mumbai 400001.… RESPONDENTS on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 3Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odt...Mr. Makrand D. Adkar Senior Counsel with Mr. P. B. Shirsath Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. A. G. Talhar Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.Mr. M. M. Nerlikar APP for Respondent No.4.…ANDCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1717 OF 2020Miss Sonal Paras Chordiya Aged: 31 years Occupation: Business Indian Inhabitant Resident at: 186 Akshada Garden Poona Ahmednagar Highway Ahmednagar 414001.… PETITIONERV E R S U S1.Union of India through the Ministry ofFinance Department of Revenue RoomNo. 46 North Block New Delhi 110 001.2.Directorate General of GST Intelligence(DGGI)1st & 2nd Floor Wing Number 06 West Block 08 RK Puram New Delhi 110066.3.Chief Commissioner of CGST NagpurNashik Commissionerate Ahmednagar Division Post Box No.81 GST Bhavan Civil Lines Telengkhedi Road Nagpur 440001.4.State of Maharashtra through the Director General of Police Chhatrapati Shivaji MaharajMarg Colaba Mumbai 400001.… RESPONDENTS on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 4Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odt...Mr. Makrand D. Adkar Senior Counsel with Mr. P. B. Shirsath Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. A. G. Talhar Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.Mr. A. V. Deshmukh APP for Respondent No.4.…ANDCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1718 OF 2020Mr. Kirtikumar Manikchand Dugad Aged: 50 years Occupation: Business Indian Inhabitant Resident at: Plot No. 5 S. No. 686 Natekar Society Bibwewadi Pune 411037.… PETITIONERV E R S U S1.Union of India through the Ministry ofFinance Department of Revenue RoomNo. 46 North Block New Delhi 110 001.2.Directorate General of GST Intelligence(DGGI)1st & 2nd Floor Wing Number 06 West Block 08 RK Puram New Delhi 110066.3.Chief Commissioner of CGST NagpurNashik Commissionerate Ahmednagar Division Post Box No.81 GST Bhavan Civil Lines Telengkhedi Road Nagpur 440001.4.State of Maharashtra through the Director General of Police Chhatrapati Shivaji MaharajMarg Colaba Mumbai 400001.… RESPONDENTS on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 5Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odt...Mr. Makrand D. Adkar Senior Counsel with Mr. P. B. Shirsath Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. A. G. Talhar Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.Mr. M. M. Nerlikar APP for Respondent No.4....CORAM :T. V. NALAWADE &M. G. SEWLIKAR JJ.DATE :15th January 2021.O R D E R:the Petitionerdeposited this amount with Respondent No.2 but under protest. It isthe contentions of the Petitioners that they want to contest the liabilitylevied against them. on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 7Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odt4In the petitions it is mentioned that the Petitioners want tochallenge the prosecution as it is on wrong conceptions and as theprovisions of Sections 154 157 and 172 of the Code of CriminalProcedure are not followed by the Respondents. It is the contentionsof the Petitioners that all the provisions of the Code of CriminalProcedure need to be applied for registration of crime investigationand for taking cognizance of the offence and as the procedure is notfollowed action taken against them is illegal.5As against the aforesaid contentions of the Petitioners theRespondent department has contended that no summons as such isissued against the Petitioners and the petitions are based onmisconceptions. It is contended that the department is following theprocedure given under the Act and the officers are acting as per thepowers vested in them by the Act. It is the contentions of theRespondent that the investigation into the business of M s RutuEnterprises revealed that fake invoices without receipt or supply ofgoods or services were prepared for availing input tax credit and that isthe fraud played by M s. Rutu Enterprises. It is contended that manyinvoices were issued to M s. Ganraj Ispat Private Limited company ofthe Petitioners involving the amount of Rs.5 50 66 962 for which GSTof Rs.84 00 046 is recoverable. It is contended that after gatheringsuch information search was taken of the premises of M s. Ganraj on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 8Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtIspat Private Limited on 24th November 2020 and the documentscollected revealed that there were such fake invoices issued by M s.Rutu Enterprises to M s. Ganraj Ispat Private Limited. It is contendedthat statement of Shri Tushar Munot was confronted to the Petitionersand the statement of Gaurav Dugad a director of M s. Ganraj IspatPrivate Limited came to be recorded on 24th November 2020 underSection 70 of the ActNos.4322 43219arising out of many matters including the matter of Union of India Vs.Sapna Jain and others is produced. The order dated 29th May 2019is as under:“Delay condoned.Issue notice returnable in four weeks.As different High Courts of the country havetaken divergent views in the matter we are of the viewthat the position in law should be clarified by this Court.Hence the notice.As the accused respondents have been grantedthe privilege of pre arrest bail by the High Court by theimpugned orders at this stage we are not inclined tointerfere with the same. However we make it clear thatthe High Courts while entertaining such request infuture will keep in mind that this Court by order dated27.5.2019 passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 4430 2019 had on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 10Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtdismissed the special leave petition filed against thejudgment and order of the Telangana High Court in asimilar matter wherein the High Court of Telangana hadtaken a view contrary to what has been held by the HighCourt in the present case.Beyond the above we do not consider itnecessary to observe anything further.The present matters alongwith other connectedmattersNo. 244 2019 W.P.No.118 2019 T.C.No. 3 2018 T.C.No. 4 2018 SLPNo. 4634 2014 SLPNo. 993 2016 W.P.No. 309 2018 W.P.No. 333 2018 andW.P.No. 34 2019) be listed before a Bench ofthree Judges.SLP(Crl.) No. 4571 2019Having heard learned Counsel for the petitionerand upon perusing the relevant material we are notinclined to interfere. The special leave petition isaccordingly dismissed.Pending interlocutory applications if any shallstand disposed of.”8The learned counsel for Petitioners made specificsubmissions in respect of Writ PetitionNo. 1119 filed inSupreme Court and copy of the petition is produced. He submittedthat in the proceeding like Writ PetitionNo. 1119 filed byMukesh Kothari it is the contentions of Kothari that the procedure on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 11Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtgiven under Chapter XII of the Code of the Code of Criminal Procedureis mandatory in such cases and if that procedure is not followed theinvestigation will be vitiated. It is also contended by Kothari that suchinvestigation will be against the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of theConstitution of India and as there is nothing in the Act as provided inSection 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the procedure given inChapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed by theRespondents. He submitted that in view of such contentions andinterim relief granted by the Apex Court to Mukesh Kothari in WritPetitionNo. 1119 that no coercive steps shall be takenagainst the Petitioner such interim relief needs to be granted to thepresent Petitioners also.9The aforesaid common order made by the Apex Court inSpecial Leave to AppealNos.4322 43219 shows thatthe direction is given to place the matter before the Bench of ThreeJudges. But the fact remains that the Apex Court had refused tointerfere in the order made by Telangana High Court in similar matter. 10Some orders made by this Court at Principal Seat are alsoproduced and some orders made by other High Courts are alsoproduced by the learned counsel for Petitioners. He made somesubmissions on the basis of observations made by Madras High Court on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 12Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtin the case reported as 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 31224 Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director Vs. Superintendent ofGST and Central Excise and others) and submitted that in that casethere are observations which support the contentions made by thepresent Petitioners. He submitted that the Madras High Court referredsome observations made by the Apex Court in C.A. No.8081 2018 inorder dated 23.01.2019 and the observations are as under:“37. The aforesaid decision was carried in Appealbefore the Supreme Court and the following orderpassed in C.A.No.8081 2018 & C.A.No.8082 2018 dated 23.01.2019: ‘Heard learned counsel for the parties atlength. The issue is as to whether the power ofarrest under Section 91 of the Finance Act 1994( the said Act ) can be exercised without followingthe procedure as set out in Section 73(3) andofthe said Act. The High Court has decided afterdetailed discussion that it is mandatory to followthe procedure contained in Section 73(3) andofthe said Act before going ahead with the arrest of aperson under Sections 90 and 91. We are inagreement with the aforesaid conclusion and seeno reason to deviate from it.Accordingly these appeals are dismissed.’”These observations are in support of proposition that provisions of on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 13Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtspecial law will prevail over provisions of the Code of CriminalProcedure. 11He then placed reliance on observations made by theBombay High Court in the case reported as 2019 SCC OnLine Bom9840 andsubmitted that the entire procedure given in the Code of CriminalProcedure needs to be followed even in the matters involving GST. Hehas produced some other interim orders made by the Apex Court butthe petitions showing the contentions of those persons are notproduced. He submitted that the matters which were taken to theSupreme Court against the orders made by this Court at Principal Seatare still pending at Principal Seat and the aforesaid points will beconsidered by the Supreme Court. Again it is reiterated that there wasno interference in the order of Telangana High Court form Apex Court.12As against the aforesaid submissions made by the learnedcounsel for Petitioners the learned counsel for Respondentdepartment made submissions of the nature mentioned in the reply on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 14Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtand he placed reliance on some observations made by the TelanganaHigh Court in Writ Petition No.47619 decided with other proceedings. He submittedthat the Telangana High Court has held that the special provisionsgiven in the special Act need to be followed as it is special legislationand it is protected by Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He placed reliance on observations made by the Gujarat High Court inR Special Civil Application No.136719 decided with other matters to supporthis contentions. In these matters the relevant provisions of the Codeof Criminal Procedure are discussed by the High Courts and theprovisions of the Act are considered as special enactment. TheGujarat High Court has referred the provisions of Sections 69 132 135 61 66 73 and 74 also of the Act. The Gujarat high Court hasreferred the Finance Act 1994 which was considered by the MadrasHigh Court. Then the Gujarat High Court has referred the casereported as3 SCC 581 and the principles laid down by theSupreme Court are quoted. They are at paragraph 66 and they are asunder:“66.The Supreme Court in the case of RadheshyamKejriwal v. State of West Bengal and another3SCC 581] has culled out the various principles in the on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 15Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtaforesaid context as under :"38. The ratio which can be culled out from thesedecisions can broadly be stated as follows:Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecutioncan be launched simultaneouslyDecision in adjudication proceedings is notnecessary before initiating criminal prosecutionAdjudication proceedings and criminalproceedings are independent in nature to each otherThe finding against the person facing prosecutionin the adjudication proceedings is not binding on theproceeding for criminal prosecutionAdjudication proceedings by the EnforcementDirectorate is not prosecution by a competent court oflaw to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of theConstitution or Section 300 of the Code of CriminalProcedureThe finding in the adjudication proceedings infavour of the person facing trial for identical violationwill depend upon the nature of finding. If theexoneration in adjudication proceedings is ontechnical ground and not on merit prosecution maycontinue and(vii) In case of exoneration however on merits wherethe allegation is found to be not sustainable at all andthe person held innocent criminal prosecution on thesame set of facts and circumstances cannot be on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 16Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtallowed to continue the underlying principle being thehigher standard of proof in criminal cases.”13The Gujarat High Court specifically framed somequestions like whether power of arrest given under Section 69 of theAct can be invoked only upon completion of the adjudication process finalising the assessment and determination of liability and this point isanswered in negative. It is laid down by the Gujarat High Court thatthe prosecution and adjudication proceedings can be startedsimultaneously though there may be some exceptional circumstancesin which adjudication proceeding and its result can be considered inprosecution. 14The facts and circumstances of each an every case arealways different. In the present matters there are allegations againstthe Petitioners and Munot that they created record of false invoices forinput tax credit and by deceiving the authority they have committed thefraud of amount of more than Rs.84 00 000 . There are statementsgiven under Section 70 of the Act showing admissions given byconcerned like one director of Petitioner’s company and one Munot. Itis the case of the department that after seizure of record the companyof he Petitioners voluntarily deposited the aforesaid amount and it wasnot deposited under protest. In Section 135 of the Act it is provided on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 17Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtthat the presumption of culpable mental state is available against suchpersons. In Section 136 of the Act it is made clear that the statementrecorded under Section 70 of the Act can be used in proceeding likeprosecution as whey would be relevant. Thus apparently there ismaterial to make out prima facie case of fraud against the Petitioners. 15In Section 67 of the Act power of proper officer of makinginspection of search and seizure is given. This provision shows thateven before registration of crime such power can be exercised. It wassubmitted that crime is registered under the Act with the officer authority created under the Act. The provision of Section 67(10) of theAct runs as under:“67.Power of inspection search and seizure: ….(10)The provisions of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1973relating to search andseizure shall so far as may be apply to search andseizure under this section subject to the modificationthat sub sectionof section 165 of the said Codeshall have effect as if for the word “Magistrate” wherever it occurs the word “Commissioner” weresubstituted.”16The provision of Section 67(10) of the Act shows that theprovision of Section 165(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 18Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtbe applicable to such search and seizure and the report needs to begiven to the Commissioner instead of Magistrate. This provisionshows that this is special in nature and so this provision will have to befollowed. 17Section 69 of the Act shows power of officers to effectarrest. It runs as under:“69.Power to arrest. Where theCommissioner has reasons to believe that a personhas committed any offence specified in clauseorclauseor clauseor clauseof sub sectionor(ii) of sub sectionor sub sectionof the saidsection he may by order authorise any officer ofcentral tax to arrest such person.(2) Where a person is arrested under sub sectionfor an offence specified under sub section(5) of section 132 the officer authorised to arrest theperson shall inform such person of the grounds ofarrest and produce him before a Magistrate withintwenty four hours.(3) Subject to the provisions of the Code ofCriminal Procedure 1973(a) where a person is arrested undersub sectionfor any offence specified under sub sectionof section 132 he shall be admitted to bailor in default of bail forwarded to the custody of theMagistrate on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 19Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odt(b) in the case of a non cognizable andbailable offence the Deputy Commissioner or theAssistant Commissioner shall for the purpose ofreleasing an arrested person on bail or otherwise have the same powers and be subject to the sameprovisions as an officer in charge of a police station.”Section 69 of the Act we need to consider as it gives procedure whichneeds to be followed when arrested accused is not released on bail byofficer mentioned in this section. Thus the Magistrate comes intopicture after production of accused before him and then the Magistratewill have to follow procedure given for remand purpose in the Code ofCriminal Procedure. 18The provision of Section 69of the Act shows thatwhen bailable offence is committed the Deputy Commissioner or theAssistant Commissioner needs to exercise the power which is given tothe officer in charge of the police station in the Code of CriminalProcedure(b) andis as under:“132. Punishment for certain offences. Whoever on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 20Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtcommits any of the following offences namely:—(a) …(b) issues any invoice or bill without supply ofgoods or services or both in violation of the provisions ofthis Act or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongfulavailment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of taxavails input tax credit using such invoice or billreferred to in clause”Thus the allegations against the Petitioners and the material quotedabove show that there is material for the offences punishable underSections 132(b) andof the Act. The provisions of Section132(4) 132(5) and 132(6) run as under:“132. Punishment for certain offences. …(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code ofCriminal Procedure 1973all offences underthis Act except the offences referred to in sub sectionThe offences specified in clauseor clauseorclauseor clauseof sub sectionand punishableunder clauseof that sub section shall be cognizableand non bailable.(6) A person shall not be prosecuted for any offenceunder this section except with the previous sanction ofthe Commissioner.Explanation.— For the purposes of this section the term “tax” shall include the amount of tax evaded orthe amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 21Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtor refund wrongly taken under the provisions of this Act the State Goods and Services Tax Act the IntegratedGoods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goodsand Services Tax Act and cess levied under the Goodsand Services TaxAct.”19The provision of Section 134 of the Act provides for takingcognizance of the offences and it runs as under:“134. Cognizance of offences. No Court shall takecognizance of any offence punishable under this Act orthe rules made thereunder except with the previoussanction of the Commissioner and no Court inferior tothat of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any suchoffence.”The criminal proceeding can be filed by the Respondent departmentbut such proceeding is not in existence at present. From that angle the petitions are premature. 20The provision of Section 138 of the Act shows thatcompounding of the offence is possible either before or after institutionof prosecution. There are some provisos which show that in somecircumstances the compounding may not be possible. The proviso toSection 138(1) of the Act shows that such compounding shall not affectthe proceeding if any instituted under any other law and the on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 22Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtcompounding can be done only after making payment of tax interestand penalty involved in such offences. 21The aforesaid specific provisions and scheme of the Actshow that separate Chapters are given in the Act for determination oftax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availedand for offences and penalties. In view of the scheme of the Act thisCourt has no hesitation to hold that in the cases of present nature both adjudication and prosecution can be started simultaneously.Further the aforesaid special provisions shall prevail over theprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it cannot be said thatall the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure like Sections 154and 173 of he Code of Criminal Procedure need to be followed forprosecution under the Act. This Court is limiting the scope ofdiscussion only to the extent of the offences committed under the Actand the observations are made only from that angle. If offences underthe Indian Penal Code also are committed then different and moreserious view can be taken. It needs to be kept in mind that theallegations make out the case of forgery.22The aforesaid circumstances and position of law aresufficient for dismissal of all the proceedings. There are morecircumstances for making the order of dismissal. In the present matter on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 23Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtadmittedly no summons was issued against the Petitioners though onedirector gave statement of the nature mentioned and the amount ofRs.84 00 000 came to be deposited by the company of thePetitioners. When there are aforesaid circumstances before the in charge Court some submissions were made for the Petitioners of thenature mentioned in the order and the following interim order wasmade in favour of the Petitioners.“1.We have briefly heard the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioners the learned ASGI onbehalf of respondent No.1 and the learned APP on behalfof respondent No.4. The learned ASGI sought a pass overfor a few minutes. 2.This matter was then called out at the end of theboard and the learned ASGI submits that he causes anappearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 2 and 3.3.We have gone through the order dated 11.04.2019passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court at thePrincipal Seat in Criminal Writ Petition No.1996 2019 filedby Sapna Jain with Criminal Writ Petition No.1997 2019filed by Pinkesh Jain with Criminal Writ PetitionNo.1998 2019 filed by Alpa Jain. This Court has grantedad interim protection to the petitioners by observing thatthe petitioners would cooperate with the investigation and on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 24Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtno coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners tillthe next date.4.The learned senior advocate for the petitionersbefore us makes a solemn statement on instructions andbased on his personal knowledge that the petitionsreferred to above before the Principal Seat deal with thesame identical issue involved in all these petitions.5.The learned ASGI is unable to state as to whether his clients would place the petitioners under arrest themoment they appear before the authorities forinterrogation based on oral summons.6.The learned senior advocate for the petitionersmakes a statement that no hearing is scheduled inbetween 31.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 as they have still notreceived any written summons from respondent No.2.7.As such stand over to 11.01.2021 in the urgentadmissions category.8.The petitioners shall not be coerced to appearbefore respondent No.2 until 11.01.2021.”Thus the Respondent department was virtually prevented fromexercising its powers even like issuing summons. By such order thePetitioners indirectly got relief of anticipatory bail which is also notordinarily permissible in proceeding of present nature. White collar on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 25Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtoffences are more serious than offences like murder dacoity etc. Suchoffences are committed after hatching conspiracy. This circumstanceneeds to be kept in mind by Court as the granting of relief ofanticipatory bail hampers investigation and such approach causesdamage to the image of judiciary. 23The circumstances shows that even when the mattercould have been filed before the regular Court as search and seizuretook place in November 2020 the matter came to be filed before theVacation Court. This circumstance also cannot be ignored. Attempt ismade to give explanation that the consultant of the company wasinfected due to Covid 19 virus. Such submission ordinarily cannot beaccepted by the Court. On 11th January 2021 there was insistence togrant interim relief and adjournment was sought. The interim relief wasvacated by this Court by order dated 11th January 2021. On 14thJanuary 2021 also initially an attempt was made by the counsel whoargued the matter that only the Petitioner from Criminal Writ PetitionNo.17120 had instructed him to argue the matter. When theCourt expressed that the Court will dispose of all the matters on meritsif the Court finds that admission is not possible then only argumentwas advanced in all the matters. Due to all these circumstances thisCourt holds that some costs needs to be imposed on the Petitioners.In the result the following order is passed: on 15 01 2021 on 22 01 26Cri.W.P.1715.20 and others.odtO R D E RI.All the petitions stand dismissed.II.In each petition the Petitioner to depositRs.25 000 ndm 

Summary: Because an element of conspiracy is involved, it makes the white-collar crimes even more serious than the offences involving bodily harm. Bombay High Court gave the judgment in the case of Tejas Pravin Dugad &amp; others vs. Union of India [Criminal Writ Petition no. 1715 of 2020] stating the above-cited reasons. The decision was held by the bench of Hon’ble Justice MG Sewlikar and Justice TV Nalawade. In the instant case, pleas were filed by Ganraj Ispat Pvt. Ltd. alleging that false fraud allegations were made upon them under the CGST Act, 2017. The plea was made to quash the criminal proceedings. Through individual pleas, the directors of Ganraj Ispat Pvt. Ltd. had contended that the GST liabilities imposed upon them by the Chief Commissioner of the Central Goods and Services Tax were on a wrong conception and without following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner’s counsel had contended that Rs 84 Lacs were submitted as the GST liabilities to Directorate-General of GST Intelligence. However, the Tax department claimed that all the petitions filed by the company were misconceived; it was observed that fake records of false invoices for input tax credit were issued to Ganraj Ispat for an amount of over Rs. 5.5 crores for which GST of Rs. 84 lacs was recoverable. SC bench observed that the petitioners had admitted creating a record of false invoices for the input tax credit by deceiving the authority and the directors had not deposited the amount under protests but as the penalty amount. SC came to the conclusion that the shreds of evidence were enough to prove the fraud committed.  Relying upon the provisions and scheme under the CGST Act, the Court observed that in the present case, both the adjudication and prosecution started simultaneously, and therefore, the special CGST Act would be applied over the CrPC. SC bench imposed a penalty of around Rs 25000/- per petitioner to deposit in the court within a prescribed time limit which would be transferred to the respondents for covering the costs of the litigation held in courts. The bench had stated that the earlier interim order passed had prevented the tax department from exercising their powers, including the issuing of summons which indirectly got the petitioners the relief of anticipatory bail.