TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST registration cancellation upheld for forged invoices without actual transactions under sections 132 and 134</h1> <h3>Anupam Kumar Pathak Versus The State of Jharkhand, Niraj Kumar, State Tax Officer, Ramgarh</h3> The HC dismissed the petition challenging GST registration cancellation for forging invoices and bills without actual coal transactions and failure to ... Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - forging of invoice and bill without any transaction of coal - failure on the part of petitioner to produce books of accounts as such a proceeding under section 74(1) of JGST Act 2017 has been started - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the GST is complete Code in itself. Section 132 of the JGST Act, 2017 speaks that any person who commits any of the offence prescribed from Sub-section 1(a) to 1(l), shall be liable to be punished - Section 134 of the said Act, 2017 speaks that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. The dispute in the case in hand of forging of invoice and bill without any transaction of coal and the Court finds that if such a dispute is there, it has been set at rest by reasoned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JAYANT AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [2020 (12) TMI 1237 - SUPREME COURT] wherein at paragraph 21, directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering that identical was the situation there, the Court finds that directions under paragraphs 21.4 and 21.5 of the said judgment, are sufficient to dispose of this petition - petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) and entire criminal proceedings.2. Allegations of causing loss to State Revenue and fraudulent activities under the JGST Act, 2017.3. Applicability of IPC sections when Special Law prescribes punishment.4. Sanction for prosecution under the JGST Act.5. Directions from the Supreme Court on similar issues.Summary:1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) and entire criminal proceedings:The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR and entire criminal proceedings in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 45/2021, registered under Sections 120B/406/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(e), and 132(1)(f) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.2. Allegations of causing loss to State Revenue and fraudulent activities under the JGST Act, 2017:The FIR alleged that the petitioner, proprietor of M/S Maa Mahamaya Enterprises, caused a loss of Rs. 1,33,03,569.00 to the State Revenue by using e-way bills and GST returns fraudulently. The enterprise was initially registered under the JVAT Act and later migrated to the JGST Act. The petitioner made purchases from a non-existing taxpayer, M/S Janki Coal Trading, leading to proceedings for reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and cancellation of GST registration.3. Applicability of IPC sections when Special Law prescribes punishment:The petitioner argued that when punishment is prescribed under the JGST Act, IPC sections should not be attracted. He relied on a precedent set by a Coordinate Bench of the Court. However, the State's counsel argued that criminality under Special Law and IPC can coexist, supported by a Supreme Court judgment in The State of Maharashtra & another v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & others.4. Sanction for prosecution under the JGST Act:The Court noted that Section 134 of the JGST Act requires prior sanction from the Commissioner before taking cognizance of any offence. The FIR included the necessary sanction from the competent authority.5. Directions from the Supreme Court on similar issues:The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Jayant and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which provided directions on handling cases involving offences under Special Law and IPC. The Supreme Court clarified that prosecution under both enactments is permissible if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the respondent-State should act in terms of the Supreme Court's directions in paragraphs 21.4 and 21.5 of the Jayant judgment. Consequently, the petition for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings was dismissed, and any interim orders were vacated.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
