GST scam: Decide on sanction in 30 days, says CVC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 22

Punjab Chief Vigilance Commissioner Justice Mehtab Singh Gill has set a 30-day deadline for the office of the Finance Commissioner, Taxation, to take a decision on the issue of granting sanction for the prosecution of Excise and Taxation officials in the GST scam.

The matter has been pending for more than six months.

In a communiqué to Finance Commissioner A Venu Prasad, Justice Gill asserted the accused had been granted bail as necessary sanction for prosecution was not given. But the cases were pending beforetrial courts for the want of prosecution sanction.

“You are requested to decide the issue of prosecution sanction within 30 days positively. As per the law, this responsibility lies with your office, being competent authority…. Kindly ensure needful is done as per law,” Justice Gill asserted.

The issue pertains to grant of prosecution sanction of accused in case registered in August last year for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and other offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at the Vigilance Bureau Police Station, Flying Squad-1, Mohali.

In his communiqué, Justice Gill asserted sanction for prosecution of the officials in the scam had not been received from his department. Referring to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, Justice Gill further asserted the decision on prosecution sanction was required to be conveyed by the competent authority within three months.

Justice Gill also pointed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in which bail was granted to the accused. Among other things, Justice Jaishree Thakur of the HC had on March 31 observed sanction to prosecute had not been obtained so far and the accused were in custody since the registration of the FIR. Some of them were rather in custody since June 2020. The court, under the circumstances, deemed it appropriate to allow regular bail to the petitioners as useful purpose would not be served in keeping them behind bars.