N.K. GARG Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N .K. Garg, the petitioner herein is a Chartered Accountant. He has been booked in a case FIR No. 50 dated 29.1.2003 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Central, Chandigarh. He has filed the present petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of bail.

(2.) THE present case was registered on the complaint of one Shri P.K. Sidhu, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-II, Chandigarh, alleging therein that the petitioner who is Chartered Accountant had been filing income tax returns of himself and his family members. He was also filing the returns on behalf of other business concerns as well who were his clients. It was noticed by the Incomes Tax department that the present petitioner had been claiming refund on the basis of T.D.S. certificate of the parties, who were mainly staying in Delhi and on a thorough investigation by the Income Tax authorities, it revealed that the present petitioner had been fabricating T.D.S. certificates which were filed with the income tax returns and on the basis of the said T.D.S. certificates the petitioner had also claimed the refund. In many cases it further revealed that the parties in whose name the refunds were issued were in fact operated by the petitioner himself and one of such concerns was M/s Robin Enterprises. The TAN, PAN and the address of this company quoted on the T.D.S. certificates were false and the party did not even exist. The matter was further investigated by the Income Tax authorities and it was found that the present petitioner was operating the bank accounts as a partner although he was not shown partner in the income tax returns. The TDS certificates were printed on the computer. The TDS payments were then got verified from the Income Tax Department, Delhi but no record was found of the companies having ever deducted and deposited the tax. The petitioner opened 74 accounts in different nine banks in the name of different firms. He, thus, by fabricating TDS certificates claimed refunds which runs into lacs of rupees.

(3.) MR . Ghai submits that the petitioner is in custody since February 2003 and all the offences for which the petitioner is being tried are triable by Magistrate Ist Class. He then contends that the trial of the present case is likely to take a considerable time because of the heavy pendency in the trial court and as such the petitioner deserves the concession of bail.