TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5292 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5293 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5294 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5295 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5296 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5297 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5298 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5299 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5301 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5303 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5305 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5306 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5307 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5308 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5309 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5310 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5311 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5313 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5342 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5346 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5964 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5965 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en discharged, which order is impugned in this Special Criminal Application. 3. Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is incorrect, illegal and not as per the provisions of law. Mr. Kodekar submitted that at the stage of framing of charge the court was not required to appreciate the evidence to conclude, whether the materials produced are sufficient or not, for convicting the accused, and only adequacy of material for framing of charge is expected, and, thus stated that the order is based on whim and fancies, as the learned trial Court Judge was making a roving inquiry, as if, Court was conducting a trial, and the Court has appraised the evidence, as if, the Court was passing order of acquittal. 3.1 Mr. Kodekar, learned standing counsel, submitted that the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the statement of P.W. - R. Ramakrishnan, while he has clearly stated in his statement given before C.B.I. that HSD was sold by oil companies without physical inspection or technical inspection, the statement reveals that, the HSD was diverted by the private companies for their own wrongful gain. Mr. Kode....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al allocation is by the Ministry. 3.5 Mr. Kodekar referring to the procedure established for supply of HSD to the private entities by the public sector oil companies, submitted that the processing firm is required to make an application along with requisite documents for allocation of HSD quota to the MoP & NG for actual consumption. The Ministry thereafter on processing the application, is required to allot quota of the HSD to the processing firm; thus, the Ministry would sent a mandatory approval to the oil companies for allotment of HSD quota to the processing unit, and such supply of HSD could not be beyond the quantum mentioned in the allotment letter by the Ministry. Mr. Kodekar, thus, stated that the processing firm is supposed to first approach the officials of the oil companies for supply of HSD as per the quota allotted by the Ministry and it becomes a preliminary and mandatory duty of the officials before supply of the HSD to the processing units to check the order for allotment of HSD quota by the Ministry; hence, Mr. Kodekar submitted that no supply of HSD could be made to the processing units, without the order of the Ministry. 3.6 Mr. Kodekar stated that Shri A.K. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said procedure; and, those have been cited as a relevant witnesses, along with chargesheet. 3.8 Mr. Kodekar further submitted that as per policy of MoP & NG, the processing units are entitled to avail sales tax concession prescribed by the State and Central Government. The processing units can purchase the HSD on inter-state basis on payment of Central Sales Tax (CST) at the rate of 4%, against the applicable rate of sales tax in the concerned State; thereby, the processing units are exempted to pay the differential local sales tax and Central Sales Tax at the rate of 4%, after getting allotted quota by the Ministry for supply of HSD to the processing units on actual user conditions. Mr. Kodekar stated that for the purchase of HSD on intrastate basis, the processing units have to submit CForm to the oil companies for availing the said concession in sales tax. 3.9 Mr. Kodekar, thus, further contended that the evidence with regard to the policy of MoP & NG, requirement of technical evaluation by the TEC etc., was evaluated, and there was unanimous opinion in respect of the criminal involvement of the officials of the oil companies of marketing division, private firm owners and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are prima facie considered by way of statement of the witnesses, and further stated that, the officials of oil companies have made false representations by wrongly certifying the existence of various firms, which were only on paper, where no activities were undertaken during the relevant period, and evidence on record shows that the officials of oil companies have created bogus documents in the form of delivery orders for HSD in the name of such non-existing firms. 3.12 Mr. Kodekar further submitted that in spite of ample evidence in the initial cases sent to the four oil companies for granting sanction for prosecution, the same was denied by all the four companies and a conscious decision was taken to launch the prosecution, as the denial of sanction would not dilute the commission of offence on the part of officials of oil companies; and stated that, law does not prohibit launching prosecution against the officials under IPC offences, where sanction has been denied and even against the retired officials under P.C. Act; while no protection can be granted to the officials of government companies or public sector undertakings. 3.13 Learned standing counsel Mr. Kodekar relied on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that this Circular too, did not include HSD, and with further clarification, it was noted that TEC would send their inspection reports to the concerned oil companies with a copy to Adviser (R) to the Ministry for recommendations, if any, and the concerned oil company would await the recommendations of Adviser (R) to the Ministry upto two weeks from the receipt of the recommendation of the TEC, and the oil companies may implement the recommendations of the TEC in case objection, if any, by Adviser (R) is not received by TEC/oil companies within two weeks. He has, thus, contended that this circular had made very clear that the inspection of TEC could not be in connection to HSD. He has stated that C.B.I. has not recorded the statement of Adviser (R) of the Ministry to get the clarification of the Circular. 4.2 He has further submitted that by letter dated 27.03.2002 by the Government of India, MoP & NG, the TEC, which was constituted under the Circular dated 23.05.1995 and 18.09.1996, came to be dissolved with effect from 01.04.2002, and on dissolution of TEC by the said letter, he has submitted that, all the companies were given liberty to make their own judgments about allocatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has submitted that the circular dated 02.12.2000 clarifies that during the period of 1981 to 1988, Low Sulphur High Flash-HSD produced at Koyali Refinery from Ankleshwar crude was being supplied to processors, manufacturing high value specialities for Defence (Navy), and it was found that during that period, as per information available, normal HSD was not being supplied to processors from Koyali Refinery. He has thus submitted that the Circular dated 02.01.1981 was restricted only to Koyali Refinery. Further pursuing the said Circular, He has submitted that Mr. A.K. Dubey, Director to the Government of India, had referred to all the Circulars and had concluded that the circulars indicated, were applicable to the TEC for LSHF-HSD, HF-HSD, LDO and Crude Sludge; and, thus submitted that this very circular, which reads all the earlier circulars has concluded that the procedure to be adopted for an approval from TEC was not in connection with HSD, and the letter of A.K. Dubey, Director, Government of India, clearly proves that C.B.I. has filed the case against all the accused on a wrong assumption, which does not have its base on the circulars issued by the MoP & NG. 4.6 He has subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... non-issuance of sanction against the officers of the oil company, and, thus submitted that no charge can be framed against the accused, and the learned trial Court Judge has rightly discharged all of them. 5. Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani has stated that the submission of the charge-sheet is baseless. It has been filed without even looking to the papers, overlooking the circulars, letters and documents of the Central Government, and the charge is totally under misconception and non-applicability of the mind by the C.B.I. He has submitted that filing of charge-sheet had very large repercussion in the business of company, as well as in the lives of the officers of the Company, who suffered social stigma and arrest, and few of them were suspended and some are still under suspension; nothing prima facie is remotely suggested, the only circular in connection with HSD is with Koyali Refinery. He has submitted that C.B.I. Officers have failed to even understand that HSD is separate and different product, which could be easily understood by simple reading of the circulars. 5.1 Making reference to the definition under the Petroleum Act, 1934, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of Kerala, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1768; (ii) Masud Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 469; (iii) Captain Shankarrao Mohite Vs. Burjor D. Engineer, reported in (AIR) 1962 Bom. 198; (iv) Sheila Sebestian Vs. R.Jawaharaj And Anr., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581; (v) Mohammed Ibrahim And Others Vs. State of Bihar And Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751; (vi) Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat And ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668; (vii) Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Rajvir Industries Ltd. And Ors., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 678; (viii) Chittaranjan Das Vs. Stateof Orissa, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 167; (ix) Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels And Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661; (x) Sushil Sethi And Another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh And Others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240; (xi) D.L. Rangotha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 733; (xii) Judgment of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of S.M. Dutta And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr., reported in 2012 SCC Online All 838; (xiii) S.M. Dutta And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr., rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... oil companies as well as sales Tax Department to avail the concession in rate of sales tax. As per the case of C.B.I., the HSD so sold could only be used as raw material in the manufacture of taxable goods under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act and could not be used for any other purpose like processing material, consumable stores etc. While it was alleged that the HSD sold in the name of private companies were diverted in open market instead of using it for their declared use. It was alleged that HSD was sold in the market above the higher rate and because of the diversion, there has been huge revenue loss in the form of evasion of sale tax. 9.2 The C.B.I. has placed the case stating that, during the course of investigation commission of similar offences by 11 more units of Gujarat, 23 units of Madhya Pradesh and 11 units of Maharashtra came to light and searches were conducted at the office of four oil companies, sales tax offices and premises of the private industrial units. It has been contended by the C.B.I. that investigation revealed that HSD is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodity Act; its supply and distribution is controlled by the orders issued by MoP & NG und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sales tax department and owners of private units, alleged to have hatched conspiracy, abusing official positions and having caused wrongful loss to the government exchequer by selling HSD to various private industries of various states, which were either non-existent or non-functional. The learned Judge referring to the charge- sheet has noted that TEC had issued various circulars for supply of HSD and the circular dated 2/6-1-1981 applies only to Koyali Refinery, Vadodara, and at that time, this refinery was manufacturing LSHF-HSD (Low Sulphur High Flash - Diesel), which was meant for Navy. The learned Judge observed that the statement given to C.B.I. by R. Ramakrishnan, who is convener of TEC, on 09.06.2000, notes that the evaluation by TEC was only for LSHFHSD; Mr. Ramakrishnan had also stated that the specification of both items LSHF-HSD and HSD are different and this circular does not refer to any other State or refinery other than Koyali. The learned Judge referring to the statement of the convener of TEC found that the circular of 1981 will not apply to HSD. All the Circulars thereafter were applicable only for the sale of LSHF-HSD and High Flash-HSD, LDO and Crude sludge. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at TEC was entrusted with the task of reviewing the supply of feed-stock to the existing and new manufacturers of petroleum specialty and the committee was required to draw method and procedure with the assistance of oil companies and other agencies to ensure that the petroleum specialities are used in bonafide manner and the TEC was required to look into the supply of LSHF-HSD, LDO and crude sludge for the manufacture of petroleum specialties. Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani submitted that vide Circular dated 17.03.1988, which has a reference of the letter dated 02.01.1981, which was in context of Koyali Refinery, the circular very clearly noted that additional items would be assigned to the TEC as necessary from time to time, thus, he has stated that notification under the Circular dated 17.03.1988 was addressed to all the oil companies, while circular dated 02.01.1981 was only in respect to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., when at that time the refinery was manufacturing Low Sulphur High Flash-Diesel (LSHF-HSD). 12.1 The Circular dated 17.03.1988 was addressed to all the companies with subject of constitution of Technical Evaluation Committee on supply of feed-stock for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sir, In supersession of this Ministry's letter of even number dated 9.2.94 on the subject noted above, I am directed to convey the approval of the Government to the re-constitution of the said Committee till further orders, comprising of the following:- i) A representative from Indian Oil Corporation Convenor. ii) A representative from CHT, New Delhi. iii) A representative from Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi. iv) A representative from OCC, New Delhi. 2. The scope of Technical Evaluation Committee would be: (a) To examine the technological capability of the undertaking to process the allocated feedstock. (b) To inspect the testing laboratory capabilities to ex-valuate the products quality. (c) Products quality assurance system. (d) Adequacy of safety & pollution control measures available in the factory and (e) To evaluate the suitability of the products intended for end use industries/consumers. The technical committee would look into all the industries processing High flash HSD, LDO, Crude Sludge and feedstocks to produce solvents in small & medium scale industries and make recommendations to this Ministry for decision." 12.5 The Circular d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material and for captive power generation, and no necessary permission of the MoP & NG was obtained nor any recommendation of TEC, oil companies and State Electricity Board was taken. 14. The guidelines for release of petroleum product and lubricants to direct customers was issued on 08.07.1991 by Oil Coordination Committee. The Manual was complied by the members of the oil industries as an aid to the field staff in advising new as well as existing customers about the modalities for obtaining supplies to petroleum products and lubricants directly from the oil companies. The guidelines stated in the Manual pertained to the situation prior to the introduction of Demand Management dated 21.06.1990; with further clarification that the Demand Management Guidelines had not been incorporated as they would change from time to time depending upon product availability, and therefore it was clarified that users of the said Manual would therefore ensure that these guidelines were read in conjunction with the then applicable Demand Management Guidelines, as advised by the Deptt. of P & NG from time to time; and to ensure that the guidelines contained in the Manual were constantly reviewed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Industry for release by placing an indent for supplies. The Oil Industry verifies the approval of Explosive Deptt. for storage of product. Also if the supplies are required on Inter State basis, the Oil Industry checks the Central Sales Tax Registration Certificate for assessing the customers' eligibility to receive supplies on Concessional Sales Tax." 14.4 In regard to the delivery of the product, the said letter contained as under: "Subject to satisfying the above needs and based on Commercial understanding, a customer code number is allotted in respect of the customer. Thereafter, the Supply Point is authorized to release the product. The authorization is issued through a letter of a delivery order which indicates the details of customer code, indent or / consignee, period of supply, price of the product, validity of the delivery instructions, commercial terms, etc. Oil Industry in certain cases is providing storage and dispensing facilities based on the laid down norms to the customers. These facilities are constructed by the Oil Industry to meet the requirement of criteria laid down by Explosives Deptt. after obtaining No-objection certificate from the local District Magi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sist for any report of the TEC. The Manual itself clarifies the process of self supply in bulk and in small percentage. In case of inter state supplies, the process of concessional sales tax form is to be followed and, the oil companies checks the central sales tax certificate for assessing the customer's eligibility to receive supplies on concessional sales tax. 15. Here, the F.I.R. was registered on 23.05.2000, thereafter the letter dated 06.11.2000, signed by directors of four oil companies viz. IOC, BPC, HPC and IBP addressed to Additional Secretary, MoP & NG, Government of India, New Delhi, referred to all the earlier circulars dated 17.03.1988, 09.02.1994, 23.05.1995 and 18.09.1996, with regard to the constitution of TEC on supply of feed-stock specialities. It was clarified by the companies that in all the referred communications, the TEC was to look into the supply of LSHF-HSD/ High Flash-HSD, LDO and Crude Sludge for the manufacture of petroleum specialities, and further noted as being conveyed that additional items would be assigned to the TEC as necessary from time to time, and that during the period from 1988 till the date of communication, no additional items were ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no evidence that the applicants were aware that the "C" forms were bogus. There is no allegation that the accused committed forgery or produced forged documents. The applicants accused have not used any "C" form but the private party has produced it at the time of delivery. Looking to the "C" form, no officer of oil companies can say that "C" forms were bogus. There is no allegation against the accused that HSD was sold at lower price. There is no evidence to show that oil company has suffered any financial loss because of such transaction. There is also no prima facie evidence to prove that the delivery of HSD was wrongly given. It appears that the applicants accused have sold HSD as per the price fixed by the Govt. It has also not come on record that if the purchasers had obtain any benefit, that was not due to mistake of the applicants accused. There is also no prima facie evidence to show that the applicants have got benefit or advantage out of loss caused to the Govt. exchequer. There is no prima facie evidence to show that HSD was not sold to factories. Further more, all the transactions were done by applicants accused as a party of their official duties." 17. In the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for bringing such officers under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr. P. C. It would have done so expressly. 26. Therefore, it will not be just and proper to bring such persons within the ambit of Section 197 liberally construing the provisions of Section 197. Such exercise of liberal construction will not be confined to the permissible limit of interpretation of a statute by a court of law but will amount to legislation by Court. 27. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the protection by way of sanction Section 197 of the Code of Criminal procedure is not applicable to the officers of Government Companies or the public undertakings even when such public undertakings are 'State ' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution on account of deep and pervasive control of the government...." 17.1.1 In the case of Mohd. Hadi Raja Vs State of Bihar And Anr. (supra), the Apex Court observed that the importance of the public undertaking should not be minimised. It is observed that the government's concern for the smooth functioning of such instrumentality or agency can be well appreciated but on the plain language of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (supra) has distinguished in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli (supra) keeping in view the facts of the case. It had also treated the ratio in Amrik Singh (supra) to be confined to its own peculiar facts. The test to be applied, as has been stated by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. in the Constitution Bench in Matajog Dube (supra) which we have reproduced hereinbefore. The three-Judge Bench in B. Saha (supra) applied the test laid down in Gill's case wherein Lord Simonds has reiterated that the test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim, that what he does, he does in virtue of his office." 17.3 Here, in the case on hand, the aspect of sanction by the authority concerned would bear not of much importance. The issue is whether C.B.I. had any case to even lodge a prosecution. Admittedly CVC too had not found any case against the accused to grant sanction. 18. With reference to the letter dated 09.11.2000, Mr. K.L.N. Shastri, Executive Director (LNG), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, submitted a note in the form of statement, with reference to release of HSD to processors, as required by C.B.I., stating that he had joined OCC on deputation in April....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding the release of HSD to processors. The said letter reads as under: "Executive Director, Oil Co-ordination Committee, Scope Complex, 2nd floor, Core-8, Lodhi Road, NEW DELHI - 110 003. Dear Sir, SUB: RELEASE OF HSD TO PROCESSORS This has reference to MOP&NG's letter no. P21017/14/93-Dist dated 11.05.94, P-17011/16/93-Sup dated 23.5.95 and P17011/15/93-Sup dated 18.9.96 on the above subject. So far IOC has been releasing the supplies of HSD to the processing units as feed stock for the production of various speciality oils like Spray oil, White oil, Agarbathi oil, Textile oil, Honing oil, Antistatic oil etc. based on MOP&NG's approval after the assessment by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). Since effective 1.4.1998, the price of HSD is fixed on the basis of import parity, we are of the opinion that HSD may be released to the processors based on our Technical evaluation. However, the verification of utilisation reports etc. would continue as hitherto. It is understood that OMCs are releasing HSD to the processors without allocation by MOP&NG. In order to protect our market share, we also propose to meet the requirements of Processors in the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endation of the TEC to the oil companies, and, when a clarification was sought by P. Sudarsnam by a letter dated 23.08.1999, Mr. Shastri states before the C.B.I. that there was no change in the allocation policy and requested P.Sudarsnam of IOC not to make HSD supplies to the processors without the Ministry's allocation / Linkage, and, since clarification was sought by the E.D., IOC from OCC, reply was sent by OCC, which stated by Mr. Shastri, according to the existing guidelines available, the directions were to be followed by the oil companies necessarily, and according to him the clarification was in accordance with the existing guidelines of the Ministry, and, in the present case, to his clarification on behalf of OCC, Ministry did not issue any such amendment, which implies, concurrence of the MoP&NG on the particular issue, upon which the Oil Companies were required to act accordingly. 18.6 On being asked regarding the technical evaluation of the factories/processor units consuming HSD for production of speciality oils, Mr. Shastri stated that production involves processing activities through which some finished products were produced, which were altogether different in natu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x-Hazira was ruled out, as the only possibility was of supplying Naphtha ex-Koyali refinery of IOC. It was further noted that since December, 1992, Naphtha import had been deccanalised and the same could be imported after obtaining special licence/approval from DGFT. The communication, on record, by the Ministry of MoP&NG shows of private companies lifting of HSD from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. only. 18.11 The C.B.I. while filing the F.I.R. has failed to take a clarification from the authorized person of the Ministry as to why the Circular dated 02.01.1981 was only addressed to IOCL for the utilization of HSD from Koyali Refinery and not for any other oil companies. While the guidelines of the OCC does not refer to the requirement of TEC recommendation for uplifting HSD from any other oil companies. All the letters/circulars referred earlier hereinabove with the communication starting from 1988-1996 require TEC evaluation only for supplying LSHF-HSD/High Flash-HSD, LDO and Crude Sludge to processors for the manufacture of petroleum specialities. The communication never included the requirement of TEC for the supply of regular HSD. The Oil Companies viz. IOCL, HPCL, BPCL and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 - 2000 in connection with the alleged facts noted in the F.I.R., the officers, who were working in the company, would go by the understanding of the Circulars. It would have been the functioning of the Ministry to specify the requirement of TEC recommendation for supply of HSD from other oil companies to the processors. The oil companies all throughout had been following the directions contained in the MoP&NG circulars issued between the year 1988 to 1996, with clear understanding that TEC evaluation was not required to be carried out for supply of HSD as feed-stock to processors for the manufacture of petroleum specialities. 19. The statement of Shri Dilip Dixit Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax (Enforcement), noted by the C.B.I. on 31.10.2000 would be of vital importance. According to Shri Dixit there was no tax liability for HSD under the provision of Bombay Sales Tax Act, and HSD was tax free. According to him HSD is taxable commodity under the provisions of the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1958, and for the concessional facility provided under the Act in respect of sales tax on purchase of HSD, it is stated that, concession was provided to Fisherman Cop. Societies a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, and the issuance of 'C' forms is by the assessing officer of their jurisdiction, and the officer incharge of assessment of that particular case; the procedure for issuance of 'C' form would be that a new registered purchaser is issued 5 C-forms at the initial application subject to a bank guarantee for 37 months, and at the time of issuance of C-forms every next time, utilisation reports of the C-forms issued earlier is compulsorily obtained by the issuing authority, and the utilisation of C-forms is ensured in that form only and for the issuance of C-forms, basic formalities are to be observed and it is issued only to the registered purchasers under the CST Act. 19.3 Mr. Dilip Dixit in regard to misuse of facility of C-forms stated that only after satisfaction of the Sales Tax Officer about the proper use of C-forms issued earlier, the fresh C-forms are issued to the firms. Thus, according to him, periodic visits are made by the Sales Tax Officer of the factories who ensures that the product being purchased against 'C' form is utilised for the declared purpose, thereafter only, 'C' forms are issued. He has also referred to the loopholes of the 'C' forms and has raised apprehen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y person as a motive or reward, and the applicants accused had followed all the instructions issued by the MoP & NG and acted in discharge of the duties; no sanction has been brought on record by the C.B.I., while sanction has been refused against the officers of the oil companies and against refusal C.B.I. had written to Central Vigilance Committee, but the said committee to confirm the order of non-issuance of sanction against the officers of the oil companies and therefore, no summons were issued against those accused persons. 20.3 The learned Special Judge while discharging the accused had observed that the offence alleged to have been committed for the year 1997 to 2000, and F.I.R. was filed in the year 2000, and after a long period the charge-sheet came to be filed in the year 2011, and before filing of the chargesheet no sanction had been obtained by the prosecution under section 19 of the P.C. Act and section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Further observed that there is no prima facie evidence to show that the oil companies suffered any loss because of act or omission of the officers; there is neither evidence to show that HSD was sold by the applicants - accused at lower price, nor a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 2(zd) defines oil company, which read as under: "2(r):- "high speed diesel" means any hydrocarbon oil (excluding mineral colza oil and turpentine substitute), which conforms to such specifications for use as fuel in compression ignition engines, as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Bureau of Indian Standards, notify from time to time. 2(zd):- "oil company" means a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes an association of persons, society or firm, by whatsoever name called or referred to, for carrying out an activity relating to petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas." 21.4 By the Circular, the Ministry had informed the oil companies regarding the dissolution of TEC and had explained under what circumstances the specific objective and role of the TEC has lost its purpose and relevance, and, thus TEC stood dissolved vide effect from 01.04.2002. The communication dated 27.03.2002 of the MoP&NG had given free hand to the oil companies to make their own judgment about the allocation of the crude sludge, high Flash-HSD and LDO and to put conditions to the best of their commercial prudence and business requirement. Thus, ....