Dismissed

M/S Kukreja Steel Sales, Mandi Gobindgarh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2009CWP/14652/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ for release of detained trucks and goods after furnishing securities under VAT Act. The Court held that since an FIR for cheating/forgery was registered, the property remains case material. The appropriate remedy is to move for superdari under CrPC, not a writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit; petitioners must move for superdari under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

M/S Kukreja Steel Sales, Mandi Gobindgarh… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CWP No.14652 OF 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.14652 OF 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009.

¶4

M/s Kukreja Steel Sales and another

¶5

..........Petitioners.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Punjab and others

¶8

..........Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.

¶10

Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Piyush Kant Jain,Addl.A.G.Punjab for the respondents.

¶11

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶12

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶13

JASWANT SINGH,J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for directing the respondents 2 to 4 to release their vehicles and goods detained by respondent no. 2 on the intervening night of 3/4.9.2009 as the petitioners have already furnished the bank guarantees and cash securities as demanded by the respondent no.2-Excise and Taxation Officer(Mobile Wing) Chandigarh and who has passed the release orders also.

¶15

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that both the petitioners are engaged in the business of production and

¶16

CWP No.14652 OF 2009 2

¶17

sale of steel in the State of Punjab. The petitioner no.1 is based at Mandi Gobindgarh whereas the petitioner no.2 is based at Mohali. Both the petitioners entered into contracts for the purchase of iron scrap and further to sell it at Mandi Gobindgarh. In pursuance of their contract the iron scrap of both the petitioners was being taken to Mandi Gobindgarh in 14 trucks on the intervening night of 3/ 4.9.2009. It is submitted by the petitioners that all the 14 trucks were stopped by respondent no.2 during that night for the alleged violation of Section 51(6)(a) and 51(6)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax,2005 (for short the VAT Act). The vehicles as well as the goods were detained by respondent no.2 on the ground that vehicles were coming from a secret route from Delhi and no ICC VAT XXXVI or TEG-II Forms/slips were presented. The petitioners were issued notices dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P/1 colly.) under Section 51(6)(a) and 51(6)(b) of the VAT Act and the petitioners were asked to present before respondent no.2 on 5.9.2009. In pursuance of the notices mentioned above, the petitioners presented before respondent no.2 and furnished bank guarantee and deposited cash security dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P/2), as demanded by respondent no.2 for release of their detained goods and vehicles.

¶18

After furnishing the bank guarantee and depositing cash securities by the petitioners, respondent no.2 passed release order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P/3) in favour of the petitioners and directed the officials of police post Nabipur to release the goods of the petitioners. After fulfilling all the requisite conditions under the VAT

¶19

CWP No.14652 OF 2009 3

¶20

Act and after passing the release order dated 8.9.2009, the petitioners approached respondent no.3-SHO PS Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali to get their goods released but instead of releasing the goods and vehicles an FIR No.363 dated 8.9.2009 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P/4) was registered against the petitioners and their employees. It is further alleged that respondent no.3 refused to release the goods and vehicles in utter violation of the provisions of the VAT Act.

¶21

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents.

¶22

Separate replies by way of counter affidavit have been filed by respondent no. 2-Excise and Taxation Officer (Mobile Wing) Chandigarh and respondent no.3-S.H.O., PS Kharar, Mohali. Respondent no.2 has admitted that release orders dated 8.9.2009 were passed and Incharge, Police Post Nabipur (Mandi Gobindgarh) was requested to release the goods and vehicles, however, since goods and vehicles are in the custody of respondent no.3 due to registration of an FIR no.363 dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P/4), hence he has no role for the release of the goods. Respondent no.3 has taken a specific stand that although the petitioners have furnished the bank guarantee and deposited cash securities in terms of the VAT Act, but since an FIR No.363 dated 8.9.2009 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P/4) has been registered against the petitioners for committing an offence of cheating and forgery by creating false bills/ bilties in order to evade the payment of sales tax to the State

¶23

CWP No.14652 OF 2009 4

¶24

Government, the goods cannot be released by him and the only remedy for the petitioners is to file an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., for releasing the vehicles and their goods on superdari.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the release orders dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P/3), passed by respondent no.2 after receiving the bank guarantee and cash securities, there is no other option but to release the goods and vehicles in view of the compliance of the provisions of the VAT Act. It is also submitted that further detention of goods and vehicles by respondent nos. 2 to 4 is causing loss to the petitioners day by day as total 14 number of trucks alongwith iron scrap have been detained and the business of the petitioners is suffering badly.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. No doubt, the petitioners have furnished the requisite bank guarantee and cash securities under the provisions of the VAT Act, however, in view of registration of an FIR No.363 dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P/4) against the petitioners, before the release of the goods detained under the provisions of the VAT Act, therefore, the release order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent no.2 will only facilitate the petitioners to get their vehicles released under the provisions of VAT Act but will not help the petitioners to get their vehicles released for committing alleged offences under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC as that is a separate cause of

¶27

CWP No.14652 OF 2009 5

¶28

action and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to get their vehicles released under the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. Since the vehicles and the goods are case property in the aforesaid FIR, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to move an application before the appropriate court to seek release of the vehicles/goods on superdari and it would not be appropriate for this Court to order release of the goods in the present petition filed under

¶29

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

¶30

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶31

(Jaswant Singh) (M.M.Kumar) Judge Judge

¶32

12.10.2009. joshi

M/S Kukreja Steel Sales, Mandi Gobindgarh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kukreja Steel Sales, Mandi Gobindgarh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Food Corpn of India, Armitsar Vs State of Punjab

M/S Bhagat Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Bhagat Industrial Corporation Limited Vs State of Punjab etc.

Chetan K. Singh Vs Citi Bank Na etc.

Indian Council for Child Welfare Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

General Taxi Operator Union & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.