2015 (9) TMI 1758 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 56(c) of Punjab Value Added Tax, 2005 - seeking release of vehicle alongwith the goods - HELD THAT - Annexure P-2 is the order dated 21.12.2009, whereby penalty imposed under Section 56 (c) of the Act was deposited by the petitioner No. 1 and the vehicle in question was released to petitioner No. 1. Thus, in the present case, when the vehicle belonging to petitioner No. 1 was stopped for checking, it was found that the driver could not produce any bill or receipt qua payment of tax. Proceedings under the Act were initiated and penalty imposed has already been deposited by the petitioner No. 1. In these circumstances since in the proceeding under the Act, penalty has already been deposited by petitioner No. 1, owner of the vehicle in question, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but to abuse of process of law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of CrPC based on payment of penalty under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina of the Punjab and Haryana High Court pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking the quashing of FIR No. 309, dated 16.12.2009, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners had already deposited the penalty imposed under Section 56(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the vehicle in question was released along with goods. The learned counsel argued that since the penalty had been paid and the vehicle released, the petitioners should not be criminally prosecuted for the same offense. On the other hand, the State counsel opposed the petition but admitted the payment of penalty by the petitioners.

The prosecution story outlined that on 16.12.2009, a vehicle owned by petitioner No. 1 was apprehended and found loaded with 'Seera' (Molasses) without proper documentation or tax payment. Subsequently, the penalty imposed under Section 56(c) of the Act was deposited by petitioner No. 1, and the vehicle was released. Given that the penalty had already been paid by the owner of the vehicle during the proceedings under the Act, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners was deemed an abuse of process of law.

In light of the circumstances where the penalty had been paid by the petitioner and the vehicle released, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 309, dated 16.12.2009, under Section 420 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala, along with all consequential proceedings arising from it. The judgment highlights the importance of resolving legal matters efficiently and preventing the misuse of criminal proceedings when penalties have already been settled under relevant tax laws.