9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 985 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether in the light of the specific allegations made in the charge sheet this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under section 482 of the Code? Held that - It is no doubt true that the offences with which the petitioner had been charged are offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is also not in serious controversy that a statutory authority who is expected to perform the statutory duties as contemplated by different provisions of the Act had resorted to this method of setting the law into motion by giving a report. This court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the conduct of the officer concerned since no specific allegations as such had been made as against the said officer in this criminal petition. Suffice to state that in all promptness the petitioner paid the amounts and it is also stated that the petitioner is not in any dues at all. When that being so especially in the light of the provisions of the Act and also section 39 of the Code referred to above this court is of the considered opinion that permitting the further proceedings to be further proceeded with against the petitioner in this regard would not serve any purpose at all. In the light of the same the proceedings under challenge are hereby quashed. Accordingly the criminal petition is hereby allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions versus the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (AP VAT Act). 2. Authority of the complainant to file the complaint. 3. Requirement of written consent from the Commissioner under the AP VAT Act. 4. Allegations of fraud and the subsequent payment of dues by the petitioner. 5. Legal precedents and their applicability to the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the IPC Provisions versus the AP VAT Act: The petitioner argued that the AP VAT Act is a comprehensive statute with specific provisions for dealing with any illegality committed by an assessee in filing returns. Therefore, resorting to the IPC provisions is unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statutory authority acted beyond the purview of the AP VAT Act and that the complaint should be quashed. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor maintained that the offenses in question are under the IPC, and hence, the provisions of the AP VAT Act regarding written consent do not apply. The court noted that the petitioner was charged under sections 417, 420, and 471 of the IPC, which are not listed under section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 2. Authority of the Complainant to File the Complaint: The petitioner's counsel argued that if the complainant is considered a private person, the complaint cannot be maintained under section 39 of the CrPC. The court observed that the offenses under sections 417, 420, and 471 of the IPC are not included in section 39 of the CrPC, which mandates public reporting of certain offenses. 3. Requirement of Written Consent from the Commissioner: Section 62 of the AP VAT Act specifies that no prosecution for any offense under the Act shall be instituted without the written consent of the Commissioner. The court noted that the petitioner was not charged with any offenses under the AP VAT Act but under the IPC. Therefore, the requirement of written consent from the Commissioner does not apply in this case. 4. Allegations of Fraud and Subsequent Payment of Dues: The petitioner, a proprietor of a trading firm, was alleged to have submitted fake challans for tax payments. Upon discovering the fraud committed by an employee, the petitioner promptly paid the due amount of Rs. 4,47,034 with the correct challan. Despite this, the statutory authority invoked penal provisions under the AP VAT Act. The court considered that the petitioner had already paid the amounts due to the government and was not in any dues. The court also noted that the statutory authority had resorted to initiating criminal proceedings by filing a report, which was seen as an abuse of the court process. 5. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability: The petitioner's counsel cited several legal precedents to support the argument that prosecution under the IPC is not warranted when the AP VAT Act provides specific remedies. The court referenced the following cases: - T. Kumar Babu v. Girish Sandhi [2006] Crl. L.J. 2839: The court observed that section 39 of the CrPC does not authorize the complainant to report offenses under section 420 of the IPC. - Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2006] 287 ITR 91 (SC): The Supreme Court held that assessment proceedings are judicial in nature and that the statutory power exercised by the assessing authority is not administrative but judicial. - Kuldip Chopra, I.T.O. v. Sohan Singh Dhiman [1977] 110 ITR 521 (P&H): The High Court held that prosecution is not warranted in every case where a wrong statement is made, especially if the assessee lacks the requisite mens rea. - Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill v. Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Guntur [1970] 26 STC 208 (AP): The court held that the Special Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to collect tax in addition to the compounding fee. The court concluded that allowing further proceedings against the petitioner would not serve any purpose, especially considering the provisions of the AP VAT Act and section 39 of the CrPC. Therefore, the proceedings were quashed, and the criminal petition was allowed.
|
