9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (5) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000. Romesh was acquitted. The sentences passed on Jagannath Prasad were concurrent. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed and in revision to the High Court Jagannath Prasad was acquitted of the offence under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code but the other convictions and sentences were upheld. Against this judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad the appellants have come to this Court by special leave. The facts leading to the appeal are these: In 1950-51, the firm of the appellants purchased vegetable ghee valued at about Rs. 3 lacs from places outside the State of U.P. in the name of four fictitious firms. The firm made its return for that year to the Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, and did not include the sale proceeds of these transactions on the ground that they had purchased them from these four firms who were supposed to be carrying on business in Hathras, Aligarh, and other places in U.P. By thus not including the proceeds of the sales of these transactions the firm evaded payment of sales tax for that year on those transactions. The return of sales tax made by the firm was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer with the consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is turnover of each assessment year a tax at the rate of three pies a rupee. Thus the tax was payable in regard to all sales but under section 3-A(1) the tax was leviable only at a single point. That section provided: Section 3-A(1): "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the turnover in respect of any goods or class of goods shall not be liable to tax except at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed." The Government could declare the tax to be payable at a single point but there were two requirements; there had to be a notification in the Official Gazette declaring the point at which the tax was payable and in the series of sales by successive dealers it had to be "as may be prescribed", i.e., as may be prescribed by rules. Section 3-A was amended in 1952, with retrospective effect but retroactive provision is not applicable to the present proceedings. Under section 3-A a Notification No. 1(3) was issued on June 8, 1948, declaring that the proceeds of sales of vegetable ghee imported from outside shall not be included in the turnover of the deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted under section 14(d) of the Act which provides: Section 14. "Offences and Penalties-Any person who (a) ..................... (b) ..................... (c) ..................... (d) fraudulently evades the payment of any tax due under this Act, shall, without prejudice to his liability under any other law for the time being in force, on conviction by a Magistrate of the first class, be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and where the breach is a continuing breach, to a further fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day after the first during which the breach continues." It is no defence to say that the appellants were asked by the Sales Tax Officer to produce invoices. The appellants were trying to get exclusion from their turnover of the sale of goods worth about Rs. 3 lacs and had made statements before the Sales Tax Officer in regard to it on July 9, 1951, and in order to prove that the goods were not required to be included in the turnover the invoices were produced by appellant Jagannath Prasad. When a fact has to be proved before a Court or a tribunal and the Court or the tribunal calls upon the person who is relying upon a fact to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect the rights of subjects. 5. Nor because there is an appeal to a court. 6. Nor because it is a body to which a matter is referred by another body. See Rex v. Electricity Commissioners(3)." Hidayatullah, J., in Shrimathi Ujjam Bai's case(1) described Sales Tax Authorities thus: "The taxing authorities are instrumentalities of the State. They are not a part of the legislature, nor are they a part of the judiciary. Their functions are the assessment and collection, of taxes, and in the process of assessing taxes, they have to follow a pattern of action, which is considered judicial. They are not thereby converted into Courts of civil judicature. They still remain the instrumentalities of the State and are within the definition of 'State' in Article 12." No doubt the Sales Tax Officers have certain powers which are similar to the powers exercised by Courts but still they are not Courts as understood in section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In subsection (2) of section 195 it is provided: Section 195(2): "In clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) the term 'Court' includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Indian Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain[1955] 2 S.C.R. 955., a Commissioner appointed under the Public Enquiries Act, 1950, was held not to be a Court. Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation[1931] A.C. 275. was referred to in that case. At page 967 the following passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, Hailsham Edition, Volume 8, page 526 was approved: "Many bodies are not courts, although they have to decide questions, and in so doing have to act judicially, in the sense that the proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality, such as assessment committees, guardians committees, the Court of referee constituted under the Unemployment Insurance Acts to decide claims made on the Insurance Funds, the benchers of the Inns of Courts when considering the conduct of one of their members, the General Medical Council, when considering questions affecting the position of a medical man." That passage is now contained in Volume 9 of the 3rd Edition at page 343. But it was submitted that the Sales Tax Officer while acting as an assessing authority is a Court within the meaning of section 195(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because by the amendment of 1923 the defi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was said that the determination of the assessment in the first instance may not be of a court although the assessing officer may have the power to record statements. But an appeal against the assessment is dealt with by the Collector in the manner in which an appeal is disposed of by a Civil Court. In this connection reference may be made to the statement of the law contained in the judgment of Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in Shri Virindar Kumar Satyawadi v. The State of Punjab [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1013, 1018. There the distinction between a quasi-judicial tribunal and a court was given as follows: "It may be stated broadly that what distinguishes a court from a quasi-judicial tribunal is that it is charged with a duty to decide disputes in a judicial manner and declare the rights of parties in a definitive judgment. To decide in a judicial manner involves that the parties are entitled as a matter of right to be heard in support of their claim and to adduce evidence in proof of it. And it also imports an obligation on the part of the authority to decide the matter on a consideration of the evidence adduced and in accordance with law. When a question therefore arises as to whether an aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
