1962 (5) TMI 20 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Conviction orders challenged - the trial of the appellants was illegal because of want of complaint by the Sales Tax Officer under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code Held that - Appeal dismissed. In our opinion a Sales Tax Officer is not a Court within the meaning of section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore it was not necessary for a Sales Tax Officer to make a complaint and the proceedings without such a complaint are not without jurisdiction. The appellants were rightly convicted. The appellant Jagannath Prasad must surrender to his bail bonds.

Issues Involved:
1. Ex post facto amendment and its applicability.
2. Legality of the trial due to the absence of a complaint by the Sales Tax Officer.
3. Existence of an offense under section 14(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
4. Use of forged invoices and their implications.
5. Acceptance of invoices by the Sales Tax Officer and its impact on prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ex Post Facto Amendment and Its Applicability:
The appellants argued that no sales tax was exigible on the transactions under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act in 1950-51, and liability arose only due to the 1952 amendment, which cannot be applied retroactively. The court agreed that appellants cannot be prosecuted based on any amendment subsequent to the date of the alleged offense. The law as it stood on the date of the offense, July 16, 1951, was considered. Section 3 dealt with liability to tax, and section 3-A with single-point taxation. The notification under section 3-A was deemed ineffective due to the lack of prescribed rules. However, under section 3, every dealer was liable to pay tax on all sales, and the appellants evaded this by producing false documents, thus committing an offense under section 14(d) of the Act.

2. Legality of the Trial Due to the Absence of a Complaint by the Sales Tax Officer:
The appellants contended that the trial was illegal due to the absence of a complaint by the Sales Tax Officer under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that Sales Tax Officers, while performing quasi-judicial functions, are not considered courts under section 195. They are instrumentalities of the State for tax collection and not part of the judiciary. Citing multiple precedents, including Shrimati Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., the court concluded that Sales Tax Officers are not courts, and thus, no complaint from them was necessary for prosecution.

3. Existence of an Offense Under Section 14(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:
The court found that the appellants fraudulently evaded the payment of tax due under section 3 by producing false invoices, thereby committing an offense under section 14(d) of the Act. Section 14(d) penalizes fraudulent evasion of tax, and the appellants' actions fell squarely within this provision.

4. Use of Forged Invoices and Their Implications:
The appellants argued that the forged invoices were produced because they were called for by the Sales Tax Officer, and thus, they cannot be said to have "used" them. The court rejected this defense, stating that producing forged documents to prove a fact before a tribunal constitutes an offense of forgery. The requirement to produce the best evidence does not exonerate the production of forged documents.

5. Acceptance of Invoices by the Sales Tax Officer and Its Impact on Prosecution:
The appellants contended that since the Sales Tax Officer accepted the invoices as genuine, no prosecution could be entertained regarding these invoices. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that acceptance by the Sales Tax Officer does not negate the fraudulent nature of the documents nor the appellants' liability under section 14(d) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court clarified that the Sales Tax Officer is not a court within the meaning of section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the appellants were rightly convicted for fraudulent evasion of tax under section 14(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The appellant Jagannath Prasad was ordered to surrender to his bail bonds.

← Previous Next →