1963 (8) TMI 34 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under section 45(2)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
2. Admissibility of exhibit P-2 as evidence.
3. Liability of absentee partners for wilfully submitting an untrue return.
4. Interpretation of the term "wilfully" in section 45(2)(a) of the Act.
5. Criminal liability of partners not directly involved in submitting the false return.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the conviction and sentence of four partners under section 45(2)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The partners were prosecuted for wilfully submitting an untrue return. The prosecution was based on discrepancies between a pocket note book exhibit P-1 and regular accounts of the firm, indicating omissions and false entries. The evidence presented by the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer supported the prosecution's case, leading to the conviction and imposition of a fine on the partners.

2. The admissibility of exhibit P-2 as evidence was challenged by the defense, citing a previous ruling regarding the admissibility of statements made to tax officers. The Magistrate distinguished the case law cited, asserting that officers under the Madras General Sales Tax Act are not considered police officers under the Evidence Act. While exhibit P-2 was deemed admissible, its evidentiary value was questioned due to the circumstances of its preparation and signing by one of the partners, A-3. However, exhibit P-1, containing entries of transactions, was considered reliable evidence supporting the conviction.

3. The issue of the liability of absentee partners for the submission of a false return was raised. The defense argued that partners who did not sign the return could not be held criminally liable. Citing precedent cases, the judgment highlighted that wilfulness, or mens rea, is essential for criminal liability under the Act. Absentee partners who were not directly involved in submitting the false return were deemed not criminally responsible, leading to their acquittal.

4. The interpretation of the term "wilfully" in section 45(2)(a) of the Act was crucial in determining the criminal liability of the partners. The judgment referred to previous cases to establish that wilfulness excludes inadvertence or mistake but includes deliberate actions with knowledge of falsity. The court concluded that only the partner who submitted the false return with mens rea could be held criminally liable, while others without knowledge or intent were not culpable.

5. The judgment emphasized the principle of mens rea in criminal law, stating that criminal liability requires a blame-worthy state of mind. Partners who were not aware of the false entries in the return and did not participate in its submission could not be held criminally liable. Therefore, partners not directly involved in the submission of the false return were acquitted, while the partner who submitted the return with mens rea was convicted and sentenced.