Tax Management India.Com

Home Page

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (12) TMI 442

Offence under PMLA - Held that:- As per prosecution case, petitioner and Raman Kumar Garg were involved in paper transactions and fake documentation in order to cheat State exchequer. Petitioner is the beneficiary of the act of fake companies. ECIR proceedings and the prosecution in FIR are two distinct mechanism. Fictitious export firm had claimed VAT refund of ₹ 1.56 crores from the Government. In the enquiry, it was confirmed that all the shipping bills and documents produced by the said firm were forged and fabricated. VAT refund of ₹ 1,56,76,190/- on the basis of forged and fabricated documents from the Excise and Taxation Department, Ludhiana was transferred through RTGS in different accounts of the proprietors. Petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ions for making necessary arrangement for the videography, but he intentionally did not appear. The summons were issued to the petitioner on nine occasions, but despite service he did not turn up. Those proceedings were concealed in the earlier petition i.e. CRM-M No.12008 of 2017 in a very conspicuous manner so as to avoid rigor of non-appearance in the investigation. No such overt act was attributed to co- accused Umesh, therefore, the case of petitioner stands on different footings where his complicity was noticed in the petition with reference to facts on record. - For the reasons recorded hereinabove, extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, petitioner would be at liberty to seek regu .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

is Court. [4]. Learned counsel also relied upon interim order dated 18.07.2018 passed in CRM-M No.12383 of 2018 titled 'Umesh Garg vs. Asstt. Director', to seek parity with the aforesaid coaccused. [5]. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. [6]. Raman Kumar Garg is the sole proprietor of export firm namely M/s Jaldhara Exports. The said firm claimed VAT refund to the tune of ₹ 1.64 crores, but an amount of ₹ 1.56 crores was sanctioned to the firm. During enquiry, the documents of the firm were found to be forged. Resultant FIR No.126 dated 26.07.2013 was registered for the offences under Sections 177, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Civil Lines Ludhiana. [ .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20.12.2015 with a direction to videograph the proceedings of interrogation. Thereafter petitioner was summoned on various occasions for making necessary arrangement for videography. Petitioner did not appear on any of the occasion intentionally and he did not comply with the directions. Petitioner deliberately avoided the investigation in order to escape from the proceedings. Summons were issued to the petitioner on nine occasions, but he did not turn up. All these facts were noticed in the earlier petition i.e. CRM-M No.12008 of 2017 while declining the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.05.2017. Those proceedings were conspicuously concealed in the earlier peti .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →