2013 (12) TMI 1631 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of simultaneous proceedings under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to anticipatory bail.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of Simultaneous Proceedings:
The petitioner argued that the provisions of the VAT Act and the IPC cannot be invoked simultaneously for the same offence. The court disagreed, stating that the VAT Act deals with tax evasion and penalties, while the IPC addresses forgery and fabrication of documents. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in *Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Vimal Kumar Surana & Another*, emphasizing that a person can be prosecuted under different statutes for different offences arising from the same act, provided they are not punished twice for the same offence. The court concluded that the fabrication of documents is an offence under the IPC, and thus, criminal proceedings under the IPC are maintainable alongside proceedings under the VAT Act.

2. Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the necessary documents had already been seized and were available with the authorities, negating the need for custodial interrogation. The court initially granted interim anticipatory bail but later vacated it. The court found merit in the State Counsel's argument that custodial interrogation was necessary to determine the actual sale of goods purportedly sold interstate but likely sold within Punjab to evade higher taxes. The court noted that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation despite being on interim bail for two months. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated.

Conclusion:
The court held that simultaneous proceedings under the VAT Act and IPC are maintainable and dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation in the investigation. The observations made were specific to the context of the anticipatory bail request and not on the merits of the case.