TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Form F were submitted under the Central Sales Tax Act. These forms were submitted on various due dates (February 25, 2010, March 26, 2010, April 21, 2010, April 30, 2010, and May 21, 2010) to avail the concessional tax rate of 2% or 0% on goods sold outside Madhya Pradesh. The sales of goods worth Rs. 5,37,22,40,635/- were shown as executed outside Madhya Pradesh. (ii) Accepting the amounts mentioned in the said Form C and Form F declarations, the then tax officer assessed the Central Sales Tax at Rs. 10,74,44,813/- after applying the concessional tax of 2% on inter-state sales. Subsequently, in 2011, the then Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Gwalior Division 2, got these Form C and Form F declarations verified from the Sales Tax Offices of the respective states where M/s K S Oil Company claimed they were issued. Upon obtaining information, it was discovered that the said Form C and Form F declarations were fabricated by the company with the intent to defraud the government, evade tax, and benefit the company/firm and its partners. (iii) In light of these circumstances, a case has been registered against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eque was issued after the director had resigned from the company. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioners filed Form 32, as submitted to the Registrar of Companies, intimating the change in directorship and the petitioners' disassociation from the company's directorship from the aforementioned dates. Counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.B. Negandhi Vs. Registrar of Companies, reported in (2017) 15 SCC 661, wherein, in similar circumstances, the petitioners in that case sought the quashment of criminal proceedings of such a type. In such circumstances, he prayed for the quashment of the impugned order and other consequential proceedings arising from the complaint filed by the respondent. 5. It is further submitted that at the time of anticipatory bail, the respondent filed written objections in para 3, wherein it was categorically stated that since no intimation regarding the resignation or change of directorship was furnished to the State Government by virtue of Section 15(8) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1956, therefore, no immunity could be claimed by the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved from the corresponding dealer. These Form C and Form F declaration forms are as follows: State Name of firm (purchaser) Registrartion (TIN) C Form & F Form number Name of goods C Form Declaration (amount contained in the letter) Rs. Uttar Pradesh Shri Girraj Enterprises 5334238 424577852 Mustard Oil 16,49,66,130/- 323655472 18,05,49,528/- 414577851 35,33,68,222/- Uttar Pradesh Shri Banke Bihari Enterprises MT01621248 72786962 Mustard Oil 17,50,33,458/- 818999651 18,06,86,052/- 828999652 39,85,36,071 5845572 'F' 25,39,02,278/- 5923358 'F' 3,99,71,737/- Rajasthan (Ganganagar) M/s Saurabh Traders RJ/084114772 Mustard Oil 13,47,09,018/- RJ/084114774 14,13,09,603/- Rajasthan M/s Vikas Enterprises 0810706194 RJ/083987462 Mustard Oil 11,23,51,600/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Officer, Jaipur, according to which the business of the issuing businessman, M/s Vikas Enterprises, was found to be non-existent, and the said F Form was not issued from their office. The said F Forms (Annexures 40 to 44) were, therefore, found to be forged and false. 14. Now, the question arises regarding the fraud committed by the said firm in the Assessment Year 2007-08 and whether the present petitioners were associated with the company at that time. A perusal of the record shows that copies of the letters (annexed at Pages 40 & 61 of the petition) regarding the acceptance of the resignations of Petitioner No. 1 (Mohan Lal Garg) and Petitioner No. 3 (Gopal Das Garg) in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company are on record. The letters addressed to the Registrar of Companies on those dates, along with Form 32, are also on record, and their veracity has not been disputed by any counter-affidavit. Thus, it is clear that petitioner No. 1 (Mohanlal Garg) resigned from the company on 03.09.2005, and petitioner No. 3 (Gopal Das Garg) resigned on 01.09.1999. However, no document has been annexed with regard to the resignation of petitioner No. 2 (Govind Prasad Garg), ....