TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leging therein that the petitioner, who is proprietor of M/S Maa Mahamaya Enterprises, has caused loss to the State Revenue amounting to Rs. 1,33,03,569.00 by using e-way bill, G.S.T return etc. by committing fraud. It was further alleged that the enterprise of the petitioner was registered under JGST Act 2017 from 01.07.2017, earlier the said enterprise was registered under JVAT Act. The registration date under JVAT Act was 31.08.2010 and the TIN No. was 20151906753, as such the enterprise had migrated from JVAT Act 2005 to JGST Act 2017. The informant has given details of the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of registration of his firm. The firm of the petitioner was registered to trade in coal (HSN Code-2701), Coal; briquettes, ovoids and similar solid fuels manufactured from coal; other (HSN Code- 2706) tar distilled from coal, from lignite and pit and other mineral tars. It was also alleged that as per the receipt from the Commercial Tax Headquarters, Ranchi, the petitioner in the year 2018-19 (October 2018, November 2018 and January 2019) period, made purchase from non-existing tax payers, M/S Janki Coal Trading GSTIN- 20GHLPS7289K2ZH, with respect to purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aser-Trader. As such the bank account of the petitioner linked with the GST registration maintained in Punjab National Bank has been freeze. Request has been made to provide I.P. address of the computer by which e- way bill was being generated after registration. Accordingly, a request has been made for institution of a criminal case under sections 120B/406/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code, and other relevant provisions as also under sections 132 (1)(b), 132(1) (c), 132 (1) (e), 132 (1) (f) of J.G.S.T Act, 2017. 4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Maa Mahamaya Enterprises, which was earlier registered under Jharkhand Value Added Tax (JVAT) Act. The registration date under JVAT Act was 31.08.2010 and TIN No. was 20151906753, as such the enterprise had migrated from JVAT Act, 2005 to JGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.07.2017 having GST No. as GSTIN- 20AOLPP2899H1ZL. He further submits that the petitioner has been made an escape goat and he has been unnecessarily implicated in the present case because he had made purchase from M/s Janki Coal Trading having GSTIN- 20GHLPS7289K2ZH during 2018-19 which is now being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hable under two or more enactments - Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence." 8. In Hat Singh's case this Court discussed the doctrine of double jeopardy and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act to observe that prosecution under two different Acts is permissible if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied on the same facts. While considering a dispute about the prosecution of the Respondent therein for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Indian Penal Code, this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay held that there is no bar in prosecuting persons under the Penal Code where the offences committed by persons are penal and cognizable offences. A perusal of the provisions of the FSS Act would make it clear that there is no bar for prosecution under the IPC merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe penalties. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court on the first point." 7. Learned counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion concerned to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted. 21.2. The bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. 21.3. For commission of the offence under IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. 21.4. That in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the Incharge/SHO of the police station concerned to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act....