Case Law Details
Santhosh Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras high court)
Madras High Court held that complaint against petitioner presuming culpability on his part for failing to pay the tax is not a base for the criminal case.
Facts- The 1st respondent has preferred a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahe for the alleged offences committed by the accused 1 and 2 under Sections 59(1)(a), 59(2)(a), 559(2)(b) and 59(2)(d) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act-2007 read with Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.174 of the Puducherry Goods and Service Tax Act-2017 and for the offence of Breach of Rules under Rule 57,1945 and 49 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 and for the offences under Section 418 and 422 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
It is alleged that the first accused is a proprietor of a concern in the name and style of M/s.Al-Safa Chicken Agencies which is involved in selling chicken. The returns filed by the first petitioner for the year 2013-14 was not complete and the returns did not tally with the actual sales reported by the first accused. For the period of January 2013-February-2014 the first accused did not file any returns and pay the tax amount. The first accused had submitted objections and proposal for paying tax for two periods i.e. 10/2012 to 3/2013 and 04/2013 to 07/2013 and for the remaining assessment period the first accused did not file any objections.
The second accused / petitioner had executed an undertaking on a stamped paper by revealing his intention that he would pay the tax assessed on the first accused to the commercial tax department from time to time by standing as a guarantor to the extent of tax arrears in respect of the business done by the first accused. He had also stated that he would clear the tax due on behalf of the first accused on receipt of return intimation from the tax department.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
