Case Law Details
Rakesh Garg Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was observed by Hon’ble High Court that Section 132(6) of CGST Act, would be required only after the conclusion of the investigation and at the stage of presentation of charge-sheet/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Held: In present facts of the case, FIR was lodged under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC against the Petitioner, and he have moved petition u/s 482 of Crpc for quashing the FIR.
FIR was lodged because the petitioner was a managing Director of the company which was fake and non-existent and was shown to be procuring bogus purchase invoices from other firms. The petitioner, who functioned as the Managing Director of the Company, did business during the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. It was the petitioner himself under whose signature company was provided registration. As per the online returns submitted on GST portal, the Company admittedly did not affect any purchase or sale during 2017-18. However, the returns submitted by the Company for the financial year 2018-19 showed purchases, sale and claims of huge ITC, and the name of the Petitioner was still on the GST portal.
It was submitted by the Respondent that since the status of the firm was non-existent, it could not have been possible to either issue or serve show cause notice to the firm. It was in this background, the Department was left with no other option but to move a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR against the petitioner since his name continued to exist on the GST portal on the date of registration of FIR on 19.07.2019.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
