Som Nath VS State of Punjab

The case involving Som Nath, son of late Sh. Sadhu Ram, revolves around his petition seeking anticipatory bail in response to FIR No. 9 dated August 21, 2020. The FIR was lodged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and additionally under Sections 7, 7(a), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is being heard via video conference due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic situation.

The allegations stem from information received by the Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali, indicating that Som Nath, proprietor of Sadhu Transport and a resident of Phagwara, Punjab, allegedly engaged in tax evasion. It is purported that this evasion occurred in collusion with officers and officials of the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab. The modus operandi allegedly involved evading taxes by ensuring that no inspection or verification of documents or goods occurred during transportation to and from Punjab. The accusation further suggests that substantial monthly bribes were paid to these officials to facilitate the evasion.

Som Nath’s petition for anticipatory bail seeks protection from arrest in connection with these charges. The court proceedings are addressing the gravity of the allegations, the evidence presented by both sides, and the legal merits surrounding the application for anticipatory bail amidst the backdrop of the serious charges laid out in the FIR.

possession of the documents and electronic equipment seized during the raid. It was contended that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation as all necessary materials are already in possession of the investigating agency. The counsel further argued that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court for grant of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, the prosecution vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, asserting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and involve economic offenses coupled with corruption charges. It was argued that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy and to identify other individuals involved in the racket. The prosecution highlighted the recovery of crucial evidence during the raid, including registers detailing illegal payments and electronic devices used in the commission of offenses.

During the course of arguments, the court considered the nature of allegations, the evidence presented by both parties, and the circumstances under which the FIR was registered. The court noted that the investigation is still ongoing, with additional names potentially coming to light, warranting a thorough inquiry into the entire matter. The court also took into account the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandate stringent measures to curb corruption and economic offenses.

After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the court reserved its order on the anticipatory bail application, directing the parties to submit any additional documents or authorities they deem necessary for consideration. The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need for a fair and thorough investigation, ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld.

In conclusion, the matter remains pending before the court, awaiting its decision on whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Som Nath, considering the complex nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigation into the case.

The case at hand involves Som Nath, son of late Sh. Sadhu Ram, who has filed for anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 9 dated August 21, 2020. The FIR, registered at the Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali, accuses Som Nath of offenses under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations primarily revolve around tax evasion schemes allegedly orchestrated by Som Nath through his business, Sadhu Transport, in collusion with officers of the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab.

The Vigilance Bureau initiated the FIR based on information suggesting that Som Nath, aided by his clerk Shiv Kumar and others, evaded taxes by bribing department officials to overlook irregularities in goods transportation. This involved using bogus bills, altering goods descriptions, and receiving prior information about inspections. The investigation, bolstered by call detail records and technical inputs, implicated several department officials and uncovered a purported bribery network.

During a raid at Som Nath’s office, authorities seized registers detailing payments to officials, as well as computers allegedly used in the evasion scheme. Fearing arrest, Som Nath sought anticipatory bail, arguing that all pertinent evidence is already in the possession of the Vigilance Bureau, thus eliminating any risk of tampering or influencing witnesses.

Conversely, the State Counsel argued for custodial interrogation, portraying Som Nath as a central figure in a significant tax evasion scandal affecting GST operations. Under GST, the seamless movement of goods hinges on the integrity of tax credit chains, making any manipulation or evasion detrimental to the entire system and potentially leading to cascading consequences for unwitting purchasers downstream.

The court deliberated on the complexities of GST operations and the serious implications of tax evasion, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation given the potential widespread impact on tax compliance and revenue. The case underscores the challenges posed by economic crimes in a GST regime reliant on seamless compliance across state and national boundaries.

Ultimately, the court’s decision on Som Nath’s anticipatory bail plea will hinge on balancing the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of influencing evidence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for further unraveling the alleged scam’s details and ramifications.

Department, he has been indulging in tax evasion by manipulating documents and bribing officials. The FIR against Som Nath, filed amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, outlines serious charges under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It alleges that Som Nath, the owner of Sadhu Transport, conspired with Excise and Taxation Department officials to evade taxes through fraudulent means.

The investigation, triggered by information received by the Vigilance Bureau, suggests a systemic evasion where documents were doctored, goods descriptions and values altered, and transporters were tipped off about inspection avoidance. The probe revealed a network involving bribery of officials, including clerks and drivers, to ensure unchecked movement of goods across Punjab. Electronic evidence, including call records and computer data seized during a raid on Som Nath’s office, supports these claims.

Som Nath sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the Vigilance Bureau already possesses crucial evidence and he is willing to cooperate. His defense emphasized his inability to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. However, the State countered that Som Nath, as the alleged mastermind, necessitates custodial interrogation due to the scale of the scam. They highlighted the intricate workings of GST and the cascading impacts of tax evasion, stressing the need for a thorough investigation.

The court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, refrained from delving into the evidentiary merits at this stage. It noted the complexity and implications of GST-related fraud, where even bona fide purchasers downstream could unknowingly be affected by earlier misconduct in the supply chain. The term ‘passer’ was used to describe individuals facilitating tax evasion by ensuring goods reach their destination without scrutiny, for a fee.

The case underscores the broader implications of tax fraud under GST and the collaborative efforts alleged between transporters, passers, and officials to evade taxes. The investigation continues to uncover details, including alleged bribes paid over several years and discrepancies in administrative handling of detained vehicles and penalty collections.

In conclusion, while the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail was considered, the court recognized the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigative process, refraining from premature judgment on the collected evidence. The case remains pivotal in highlighting challenges in GST enforcement and the role of regulatory integrity in preserving tax revenues.

and the seriousness of the allegations involved, the case of Som Nath, son of late Sh. Sadhu Ram, revolves around his petition seeking anticipatory bail in a complex legal scenario stemming from multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The matter was brought to hearing via video conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Som Nath’s petition arises from FIR No. 9 dated August 21, 2020, lodged at the Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali. The FIR alleges that Som Nath, owner of Sadhu Transport, engaged in tax evasion with collusion from officers of the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab. It is claimed that through bribes to department officials, systematic tax evasion was facilitated by ensuring goods transport remained unchecked and undocumented, particularly exploiting gaps exacerbated during the pandemic. The FIR names several officers allegedly involved, highlighting a scheme where falsified documents and prior tip-offs about inspections were utilized.

The Vigilance Bureau’s investigation, rooted in technical surveillance and call records, supports claims of bribery and procedural breaches within the GST framework. This framework, designed to facilitate seamless interstate commerce, was purportedly manipulated to permit illicit tax adjustments and circumvent fiscal obligations. The involvement of transporters and intermediaries (‘passers’) in facilitating unchecked transit further compounds the allegations, suggesting a network profiting from systemic tax avoidance.

During the bail plea, Som Nath’s counsel argued against the necessity of custodial interrogation, citing the recovery of incriminating materials by the Vigilance Bureau and asserting their client’s cooperation with ongoing investigations. However, the State Counsel countered, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged scam, the need for custodial interrogation to uncover deeper complexities, and the potential adverse economic impact stemming from tax irregularities within the GST chain.

The judiciary’s decision hinges on balancing personal liberty against the public interest in tax integrity. Given the intricate nature of the allegations, the court ruled that custodial investigation is warranted to fully uncover the extent of the alleged tax evasion scheme and any collusion with government officials. The case underscores the broader ramifications of tax evasion on economic stability and necessitates thorough legal scrutiny to uphold fiscal probity.

In conclusion, while Som Nath’s plea for anticipatory bail was contested, the court’s decision reflects a prioritization of thorough investigation into alleged financial malpractice over individual liberty, highlighting the pivotal role of tax compliance in sustaining economic integrity.

In a judicial proceeding conducted via video conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Som Nath, son of late Sh. Sadhu Ram, sought anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 9 dated 21.8.2020. The FIR, filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered by the Vigilance Bureau following allegations of tax evasion involving Som Nath’s transport business, Sadhu Transport, in collusion with officials from the Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab.

The allegations detailed in the FIR suggest a complex scheme where Som Nath and his associates allegedly evaded taxes by bribing officials to avoid inspections and verification of documents during the transportation of goods within and outside Punjab. The Vigilance Bureau’s investigation, triggered by an initial tip-off, revealed purportedly incriminating conversations and financial transactions involving multiple officers from the taxation department.

During the course of investigation, the Vigilance Bureau conducted raids at Som Nath’s office, seizing registers documenting payments to officials, along with computers and other electronic devices allegedly used for orchestrating tax evasion. Fearing arrest, Som Nath petitioned for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the evidence crucial to the case was already in the possession of the authorities and thus, he posed no flight risk or threat to tamper with evidence.

However, the state counsel contended that Som Nath, identified as a central figure in the alleged scam, required custodial interrogation to uncover further details. The case’s complexity was highlighted in relation to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, emphasizing the interconnectedness of tax credits and potential repercussions for the broader economic system due to fraudulent practices like those alleged.

The court, in its decision to deny anticipatory bail, underscored the seriousness of the allegations, noting the systematic nature of the alleged tax evasion involving transporters, intermediaries (“passers”), and government officials. The court dismissed arguments that Som Nath lacked the ability to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, asserting that his alleged close collaboration with implicated officials posed significant risks to the integrity of the investigation.

Emphasizing the importance of tax collection for the economy, the court ruled that the need for a thorough and fair investigation outweighed considerations of individual liberty in this instance. It concluded that given the complexity and depth of the allegations, Som Nath’s application for anticipatory bail was not justified.

The court’s decision clarified that its ruling pertained solely to the bail application and did not pre-judge the merits of the ongoing investigation or potential trial. Thus, while the matter remains under investigation, Som Nath faces the prospect of arrest pending further legal proceedings in the case.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: