The complaint filed by respondent cannot be said to be beyond his jurisdiction because the previous sanction of the Commissioner as provided for under Section 132(6) of CGST Act, would be required only after the conclusion of the investigation. Lodging of the FIR does not amount to prosecution and is clearly distinguishable from prosecution.
Section 132 of the CGST Act— Quashing of Complaint/FIR —-The petitioner prayed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR dated 19.07.2019 under Section 132 of the Act. The petitioner was MD of the company but had submitted his resignation on 05.01.2018, which had duly been communicated to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 13th January, 2018. Thereafter, he had no role to play in the affairs of the Company. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was totally incorrect that the Company had claimed ITC of Rs. 5,49,68,735/-. The petitioner counsel submitted that since the petitioner was not associated with the Company after his resignation on 05.01.2018, he could not be held culpable of wrong doings, if any, committed by the Company after the date of his resignation. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner carried out the Company under his supervision. The company was found to be a fake and non-existent Company, but was shown to be procuring bogus purchase invoices from other firms. Further the petitioner's name continued to be on the GST portal even as on date. The court observed that Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. stipulate that if a special procedure is prescribed under a special enactment then the procedure would have to be followed as per the enactment and not under the Code. The complaint filed by respondent cannot be said to be beyond his jurisdiction because the previous sanction of the Commissioner as provided for under Section 132(6) of 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., when judicial notice of the offence(s) are taken for the first time by a Court of law. Lodging of the FIR does not amount to prosecution and is clearly distinguishable from prosecution.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Petition.
The complaint filed by respondent cannot be said to be beyond his jurisdiction because the previous sanction of the Commissioner as provided for under Section 132(6) of CGST Act, would be required only after the conclusion of the investigation. Lodging of the FIR does not amount to prosecution and is clearly distinguishable from prosecution.
Section 132 of the CGST Act— Quashing of Complaint/FIR —-The petitioner prayed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR dated 19.07.2019 under Section 132 of the Act. The petitioner was MD of the company but had submitted his resignation on 05.01.2018, which had duly been communicated to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 13th January, 2018. Thereafter, he had no role to play in the affairs of the Company. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was totally incorrect that the Company had claimed ITC of Rs. 5,49,68,735/-. The petitioner counsel submitted that since the petitioner was not associated with the Company after his resignation on 05.01.2018, he could not be held culpable of wrong doings, if any, committed by the Company after the date of his resignation. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner carried out the Company under his supervision. The company was found to be a fake and non-existent Company, but was shown to be procuring bogus purchase invoices from other firms. Further the petitioner's name continued to be on the GST portal even as on date. The court observed that Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. stipulate that if a special procedure is prescribed under a special enactment then the procedure would have to be followed as per the enactment and not under the Code. The complaint filed by respondent cannot be said to be beyond his jurisdiction because the previous sanction of the Commissioner as provided for under Section 132(6) of 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., when judicial notice of the offence(s) are taken for the first time by a Court of law. Lodging of the FIR does not amount to prosecution and is clearly distinguishable from prosecution.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Petition.