SAS Nagar court rejects tax evaders' bail plea | punjab | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 28, 2017-Tuesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

SAS Nagar court rejects tax evaders' bail plea

punjab Updated: Jul 08, 2013 22:12 IST
HT Correspondent

Additional district and sessions judge, SAS Nagar, Manjot Kaur on Monday rejected the anticipatory bail application of Deepak Jain and Jyoti Jain, partners of M/s Krishana Ispat Udyog, who are accused of defrauding the state to the tune of about Rs 23 crore by making bogus entries of inter-state sale of scrap.

A few days ago, the excise and taxation department had lodged an FIR against the two under sections 420, 165, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with sections 65, 66, 66-C of the Information Technology Act.

Apprehending arrest, Deepak Jain and Jyoti Jain filed the anticipatory bail application before the court.

Anurag Verma, excise and taxation commissioner, Punjab, said that when the case was listed for arguments, the state counsel brought to the notice of the court that whenever goods are sent from Punjab to outside the state for sale, central sales tax to the tune of 2% is charged on it. However, when such a sale of goods is made by a company (operating in Punjab), the tax which is payable on such sale is to the tune of 4.95%.

He said M/s Krishna Ispat Udyog, the company run by the two accused, had carried the sale transaction of their goods in Punjab itself, but by forging documents and have even shown wrong sale to other companies situated outside Punjab.

Excise and taxation department after conducting the inquiry concluded that the companies situated outside Punjab, to whom the goods were shown to have been sold by the accused in fact did not exist.

Thus, the company being run by the applicants-accused by showing wrong movement of goods to outside Punjab evaded tax to the tune of 2.95% on each transaction, which is nearly Rs 23 crore, he said.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, the judge observed that the applicants and accused in the case were clearly shown to have not only cheated upon the excise and taxation authorities but also evaded tax which was to be paid by them. On the basis of this, the judge rejected the anticipatory bail application.