Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Others vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 25 January, 2023
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
25.01.2023 Item No.08.
Suman Ct.42 CRR 261 of 2023 M/s. Multireach Media Private Limited and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rana Mukhopadhyay Mr. Rhiddhiman Mukherjee ..for the petitioners Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee Md. Zohaib Rauf Mr. Abdul Zahid ..for the O. P. No.2 Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record for the petitioners to correct the cause title of the instant revisional application. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are working for gain in M/s. Multireach Media Private Limited with whom a joint venture agreement was executed for distribution of television programmes through cables and set top boxes.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the opposite party No.2 made an allegation which depicts non-performance of certain clauses of the agreement.
2At the stage of admission it is pointed out by Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is purely commercial in nature and secondly from the FIR it is ascertained that such dispute took place in the year 2016 and the FIR was lodged in the year 2020. Therefore, as a result of inordinate delay it was the bounden duty of the Investigating Agency to conduct preliminary enquiry before initiation of the case in terms of the paragraph 120.6 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari versus Government of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.
On instruction Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned advocate represents the private opposite party. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that a big fraud was committed by the petitioners in view of the fact that Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India took a policy decision of television programme telecast through set top boxes having digital compliance. Such digitally compliance set top boxes were distributed to the joint venture companies and they sold set top boxes to LCO'S and their own LLP at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per set top box including taxes approximately from time to time but after collecting the said amount from the LCO's they have not 3 recorded the sales of the set top boxes in the books of accounts but merely for the purpose of concealment of income and evasion of taxes and Government duty they have recorded the said amounts as Security Deposits for the set top boxes /customer premise equipment by way of forgery and falsification of account. The inputs of GST/VAT (CENVAT) accrued from purchase of STBs by MRMPL was set-off against the Broadcasters subscription dues and other payments and their Tax liabilities thus making huge wrongful gain unto themselves to the tune of rupees one crore. It is also alleged that the petitioners under the banner of MRMPL generated a revenue of around rupees fifty crores from the sale of STBs from various Joint Venture LLP partners /LCO's and subscribers during the period of for December, 2016 to January 2019 but by way of forgery and falsification of accounts they falsely showed the same as Security Deposits. Thus, they have evaded GST to the tune of rupees nine crores.
Mr. Banerjee also filed series of invoices showing illegal sale of set top boxes to different LCO's and subscribers.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the instant matter 4 requires thorough investigation. Therefore, the instant revision is admitted.
Since the private opposite party has already entered appearance, the petitioners are directed to serve a copy of such application to the learned advocate for the opposite party in course of this day. The opposite party is at liberty to file affidavit-in- opposition within a fortnight and serve the same to the learned advocate on record for the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to file affidavit-in-reply, if any.
The Investigating Authority is directed to carry out the investigation of the case. They are also permitted to examine the accused persons by giving notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
If the prosecution authority requires custody of any of the petitioners, it is open for the prosecution authority to pray for the same before this Court. The matter to appear on 3rd March, 2023 under the heading "Specially Fixed Matter".
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)