TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act - It would be pertinent to note here that the Act is a complete Code in itself and there is no provision provided in the Act for the registration of an FIR. The Act only provides for imposition of penalty in case there is any contravention of its provisions. Since the Act is a special law, principle of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply, meaning thereby, it would operate in exclusion to the general law i.e. the IPC. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ 2012 (3) TMI 576 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ], while relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh's case [ 2005 (11) TMI 502 - SUPREME COURT ] held that the provision of the Act are sufficient and eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e code in itself and operates in exclusion to the general law including the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (fort short, 'the IPC'), no FIR could have been registered against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in case of any contravention of the provisions of the Act, a detailed procedure already stands prescribed under the Act. However, the State has tried to give a criminal complexion to the alleged Tax evasion, to bring the same within the ambit of the IPC. It has been argued that the petitioner allegedly issuing bogus invoices and misused the VAT registration (TIN) number assigned to him and thus committed forgery and fraud, however, at best it being a case of evasion of VAT would fall within the purview of Section 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014; CRM-M-17413-2013 titled as 'Jaswant Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 12.01.2015; CRM-M-14539-2014 titled as 'Sandeep Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 12.03.2015; CRM-M-30817- 2013 titled as 'Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 08.12.2014; CRM-M-39270-2013 titled as 'Munish Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 08.09.2015; CRM-M-24853-2012 titled as 'Ishwar Singh @ Billa Vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 30.04.2013 and CRM-M- 26116-2010 titled as 'Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 05.03.2012. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the submissions and prayer mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices against bogus purchases to credit bogus ITC and further the petitioner was granted registration certificate only for resale of nuts and bolts and HR sheets, however, he was also found to be illegally trading in iron and steel. 8. It would be apposite to reproduce Sections 57 and 58 of the Act which read as under:- 57. Penalty for failure to issue invoice and use of false invoice-(1) A person, who fails to issue invoice for any sale transaction as required under section 45, shall be liable to pay a penalty of rupees two thousand or double the amount of tax involved in the transaction, which-ever is higher. (2) A person, who issues a false invoice or receives and uses an invoice knowing such invoice to be false, shall be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are sufficient and equipped to deal with the matter where an attempt is made to evade the Tax and the registration of FIR in such like matter is totally an abuse of the process of law. 12. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that an assessment order 27.03.2014 already stands passed by Excise Taxation Officer cum-Designated Officer, Ludhiana II, wherein the petitioner has already been ordered to pay tax to the tune of ₹ 72,27,824/- for offences committed under the Act. 13. As a sequel to the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR would be nothing but an abuse of process of the process of law. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the FIR in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
