TMI Blog1962 (2) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter exhibit P.3, and exhibit P.2 is the acknowledgment by the company for the receipt of the summons. Admittedly, the company did not comply with the summons. It is clear from the summons, exhibit P.1, that the company was summoned merely to produce the account books. Hence, the offence, if any, committed by the company is one falling under section 175, Indian Penal Code, and not under section 174, Indian Penal Code. The only point to be considered in revision is whether the company was legally bound to produce the account books of the year 1954-55. It is specifically printed in the summons form that the subject-matter of the enquiry, in respect of which the documents were required to be produced, should be entered briefly. Though this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibit P.3, it is stated that the accounts for 1954-55 were called for at the direction of the revising authority to re-examine the claim for exemption duly allowed. But, under sections 32 and 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue alone are empowered to revise the orders passed by the subordinate Commercial Tax Officers, and such powers of revision could not be exercised if more than four years had elapsed after the passing of the order. P.W. 1, Sri R. Govindaraj, has no powers to rectify or revise the orders passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The learned Fourth Presidency Magistrate has relied on sections 41(1) and 54 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act as empowering P.W. 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision could be made only during a period of four years. It is true that, both under the rules framed under the old Act and under the new Act, a dealer should preserve his accounts for a period of five years. But, in the absence of any evidence to show that P.W. 1, Sri Govindaraj, had powers to summon the accounts for the purpose of the Act as contemplated under sections 41(1) and 54 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, it could not be said that the petitioner was legally bound to produce his account books. The conviction of the petitioner under section 174, Indian Penal Code, cannot, therefore, be sustained. The conviction and the sentence are, therefore, set aside and the fine amount, if collected, is ordered to be refunded to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
