info@gstindia.biz | +91-9876512345
GST INDIA Biz
GSTIndia.biz — Case Law Details
Detailed GST Case Law Information

Hyeoksoo Son, Authorized Representative for Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Moon June Seok & Anr.

Date of Order: April 8, 2025
Subject: Appeal against quashing of criminal proceedings relating to alleged misappropriation of company funds and fraud under Sections 406, 408, 409, 418, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
Description:

The appellant, Hyeoksoo Son, representing Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd., challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 19 February 2024, which had quashed criminal proceedings and the charge sheet in C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 arising out of Crime No. 287 of 2022 at Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The case involved allegations of financial fraud and criminal breach of trust by company officials and external advisors.

The complaint alleged that the company, on the advice of N.K. Associates, transferred over ₹10.18 crore purportedly towards GST payments, which were instead diverted to entities controlled by the accused. An internal inquiry revealed that no GST liability existed and that the funds were misappropriated. The accused included Nikhil K.S., Ritesh Merugu, Vinay Babu Venugopal, and Anushka Singh. The respondent, Moon June Seok, a company executive, was also implicated for having allegedly received ₹1.8 crore in cash from a co-accused.

The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the respondent was only a forwarding agent without a substantive role in the misappropriation. It found no prima facie evidence against him and accepted his explanation regarding the money as personal transactions.

The Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the pre-trial stage. The Court observed that both the respondent and co-accused had given corroborative statements acknowledging the transfer of ₹1.8 crore, thereby indicating a prima facie link. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it ruled that quashing was unjustified when material evidence required trial examination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 to the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 16 April 2025.

Foot Note:

Case Laws Referred:

  1. Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, DRI (2018) 8 SCC 271
  2. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401
  3. Priti Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi (2021) 16 SCC 142
  4. Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 9 SCC 35
  5. Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642
  6. CBI v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410
  7. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547
  8. Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3803
  9. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
  10. P.M. Lokanath v. State of Karnataka 2025 SCC OnLine SC 301
  11. Karuppudayar v. State 2025 SCC Online SC 215
  12. Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. (2025) 2 SCC 604

 

Other Case Law

Ms. Anita Agarwal vs Union of India & Ors.

Entitlement to interest on delayed refund of IGST on exports

The petitioner sought interest on delayed refund of IGST paid on export of goods...

Read More
Travancore Minerals and Transport Company vs State of Karnataka & Ors.

Blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A without compliance of safeguards

The petitioner challenged blocking of ITC under Rule 86A on the ground that no r...

Read More
Baba Minerals vs Union of India & Ors.

Cancellation of GST registration and denial of opportunity of hearing

The petitioner challenged cancellation of GST registration on the ground that th...

Read More