Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the FIR and the ensuing criminal proceeding under the Indian Penal Code and the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The allegations concerned fake invoices, wrongful availment of input tax credit, and suspected revenue loss. The Court noted that the GST enactment is a complete code in itself and that prosecution for offences under the penal law is not excluded merely because the same factual matrix also discloses offences under the special fiscal statute. The Court relied on the principle that where one act constitutes offences under different enactments, prosecution under both is permissible, subject to the bar against double punishment. It also noticed that the statutory sanction for institution of proceedings had been obtained and that the matter fell within the legal position later explained by the Supreme Court on coexistence of IPC offences with special statute offences.
Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected and the criminal proceeding was allowed to continue.
Final Conclusion: The petition was not found fit for interference and the prosecution based on the alleged GST and IPC offences was permitted to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: A special fiscal statute does not, by itself, bar prosecution under the Indian Penal Code where the same facts disclose ingredients of offences under both enactments and the statutory preconditions for proceeding under the special statute are satisfied.