1995 (6) TMI 189 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of orders passed under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Applicability of the period of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Interpretation of the Karnataka Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1981.
4. Consideration of extenuating circumstances in economic offences.
5. Invocation of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash the orders passed by the Special J.M.F.C. (Sales Tax) under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The charges were related to non-filing of monthly statements, and the petitioner argued that the orders should be quashed as they were time-barred and filed after a significant delay.

2. The petitioner contended that the period of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should apply, making the proceedings time-barred. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment and argued that the charges should be quashed due to the delay in filing.

3. The respondent, on the other hand, referred to the Karnataka Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1981, which made Chapter XXXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to certain offences, including those under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The respondent argued that the limitation period did not apply due to this Act.

4. The petitioner also raised the issue of substantial loss incurred due to a fire accident at the factory, affecting the operations. However, the court held that such circumstances could not be considered in the current petitions but could be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

5. The court emphasized the exceptional nature of the power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that it can only be used to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure justice. In the absence of any legal bar or abuse of process, the court concluded that the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings could not be invoked. As a result, all criminal petitions were dismissed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the quashing of orders, interpretation of legal provisions, consideration of extenuating circumstances, and the invocation of inherent jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code.