Anupam Kumar Pathak Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because the provision of GST law prescribes punishment
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Anupam Kumar Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. [W.P. (Cr.) No. 141 of 2022 dated July 04, 2023] held that the FIR logged and criminal proceeding initiated under Sections 120B/406/ 420/471 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) cannot be quashed merely because of the reason that the offence is covered under GST law.
Facts:
Mr. Anupam Kumar Pathak (“the Petitioner”) is a proprietor of M/s Mahamaya Enterprises engaged in trade of coal and coal products. It was alleged that the Petitioner had purchased goods from M/S Janki Coal Trading which later turned to be a non-existent supplier. The Commercial Tax Headquarters, Ranchi instructed the Petitioner to reverse the ITC availed on purchases from such non-existent supplier.
Later, the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) directed the Petitioner to produce the books of accounts and evidence with respect to payment and transport bill etc. pertaining to supplies received from such non-existent supplier but the Petitioner failed to produce any documents within time, thereafter a DRC-07 was issued with respect to tax, interest, and penalty and treated the activities of the Petitioner suspicious. Subsequently the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled vide an order dated March 20, 2020.
The Petitioner obtained new GST registration and continued the business. Thereafter an inspection was conducted by the Respondent on the workplace of Petitioner on August 06, 2020 during which several irregularities were found, such as no hoarding on workplace, no accounts in respect to inward and outward supplies etc.
The Respondent ordered to produce the books of accounts but the Petitioner failed to produce such documents accordingly, the proceedings under section 74(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the JGST Act”) has been initiated and the entire business done by the Petitioner was declare fraud and thereafter entire ITC claimed was rejected for the period 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and demand of tax, interest and penalty made vide Form DRC-07.
Further, the Respondent requested to cancel the GST registration of second firm of the Petitioner with the intention to commit fraud the trader by misusing GST registration and caused revenue loss by generating fake invoice and in this way the trader has passed on ITC to Purchaser-Trader.
Accordingly, the Respondent requested to institute a criminal case under sections 120B/406/420/471 of the IPC, and other relevant provisions as also under sections 132 (1)(b), 132(1) (c), 132 (1) (e), 132 (1) (f) of the JGST Act.
The Petitioner had filed a writ before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court praying for quashed the F.I.R and the criminal proceedings on the ground that when the GST law itself prescribes the punishment under section 132 of under JGST Act and thus, it is a well settled that IPC sections will not attract.
Issue:
Whether criminal proceeding can be initiated under IPC even in case where GST law prescribes punishment for the same offence?
Held:
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 141 of 2022 held as under:
