9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n C.M.P.No.696 of 2012 in C.C.No.146 of 2008 to discharge and the trial Court did not consider the points raised by the petitioner herein and held that sanction for prosecution is required from the Commissioner (CT) to file the prosecution complainant, by virtue of Repeal and Saving Clause under Section 81(2) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. But unfortunately the trial Court instead of deciding the competency of the person who is occupying the office of the Commissioner (CT), held other way around that the Commissioner (CT) is competent to issue the sanction for prosecution. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and other accused persons have also preferred revision Petition in Crl.R.C.Nos. 233 to 236 and Crl.R.C.Nos.926 & 956 of 2014 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 03.09.2018, dismissed the revision petitions only on the ground that already charges were framed and trial has been commenced in all the cases. Therefore this Court did not consider the said point raised by the petitioner and dismissed the revision petitions. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to filed this petition to quash the proceedings. Hence, the entire proceedings is liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med by this Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition. 4. Heard Mr. N. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Balamurugane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy) appearing for the respondent. 5. There are totally five accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1. The petitioner has been charged for the offences under Sections 49(2)(a), 49(2)(b) and 27(2)(b) r/w 27(3) of Pondicherry General Sales Tax 1967 r/w Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and under Section 409 and r/w 34 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s.Fishermen Fuel Centre, Karaikal and petroleum dealer registered his business under the PGST Act, CST Act, 1956 and PVAT Act, 2007 and an assessee in the books of CTO, Karaikal. On cross verification of the sales details obtained from the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai, with that of the monthly returns filed by the petitioner, it was ascertained that large scale of suppression of purchase and sales turnover from the years 2000-2001 to 2005-06. Thereafter sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner and the Assessing Officer has levied tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that charges were framed and the trial has been commenced, even till today no charges have framed as against the petitioner and the trial yet to be commenced. 7. The only point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the competent authority did not accord any sanction to prosecute the petitioner herein. In this regard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy) filed counter and submitted as follows :- "8. I submit that as per order vide G.O.Ms.No.270/69/F5 dated 14.11.1969 of the Government of Puducherry, Finance Planning and Local Administration Department, empowers all officers of the Sales Tax Department of the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and above, to accord sanction for prosecution of offences punishable under the Act or Rules framed thereunder, which arise within their jurisdiction. 9. I submit that the Government of Puducherry, Finance Department issued notification vide G.O.Ms.No.45/97/F2 dated 25.07.1997 designating the post of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxed as Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 19678, by virtue of the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales (Amendment) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hiru. M.Rajasekar under Section 63 of the PVAT Acts, 2007 for filing C.C. agains the petitioner before the JM-II, Karaikal to recover the arrears of tax and penalty and to punish him under IPC offences is valid in the eye of law. 13. I submit that in the meanwhile Thiru. M.Rajesekar who was ordered to hold full additional charge of the post of Deputy Commissioner has filed Original Application in O.A.No.1449/2019 before the Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench to promote him to the Deputy Commissioner (CT) and designated him as Commissioner (CT) on regular basis. After hearing, the Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench has directed to consider him to the post of Deputy Commissioner. Further, the above said order of the Hon'ble CAT is entirely different in nature and the same will not vitiate the prosecution sanction issued by the Thiru M.Rajasekar, who hold the full additional charge as Commercial (CT) right from 18.04.2007 to 04.05.2012 by virtu of the Notification in G.O.Ms.No.15/F2/2007 dated 18.04.2007." Accordingly, the competent officer accorded sanction for prosecution to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 49(2)(a), 49(2)(b) and 27(2)(b) r/w 27(3) of Pondicherr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for." 11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
