2022 (12) TMI 1105 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Evasion of sales tax - concealing the sales figures of business pertaining to the year from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 - HELD THAT - The petitioner is now facing proceedings with civil consequences like imposition of penalty upon him. With the self same cause of action he has also been subjected to criminal proceedings as above. The criminal proceeding has been initiated without a sanction order from the Commissioner, as envisaged in law to be mandatory precondition for initiation thereof. All these facts unfailingly point out to the inherent illegality and nullity of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. There should not be any hesitation to hold that in case the said proceeding is allowed to be continued against the petitioner, the same would amount to be abuse of the process of court. Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Allegation of tax evasion and criminal proceedings challenging legality and mala fide intentions.

Analysis:
The petitioner is accused of concealing sales figures from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 to evade taxes, leading to criminal proceedings under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, citing discrepancies in tax quantification notices and alleging double jeopardy due to parallel civil and criminal actions. The State argues that no formal sanction is needed for criminal prosecution as per Section 88(12) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, portraying the petitioner as a habitual tax evader. The State contends that strong prima facie evidence exists justifying the criminal case and opposes quashing it.

The petitioner operates a business and faces accusations of tax evasion, with differing amounts specified in tax evasion notices. The Taxation Tribunal directed an inquiry into alleged tax evasion, followed by the initiation of criminal proceedings. The petitioner argues that ongoing civil proceedings under Section 76 of the Act should precede any criminal action to avoid double jeopardy, as per Section 88(13). The absence of formal sanction from the Commissioner for criminal prosecution is highlighted, indicating non-compliance with Section 88(12).

The State's assertion that the court should not conduct a "mini trial" but assess prima facie evidence is acknowledged, yet the court's duty to intervene in inherently flawed proceedings is emphasized. The court deems the criminal proceedings invalid due to the lack of a Commissioner's sanction, potential double jeopardy, and ongoing civil proceedings. Consequently, the court quashes the criminal case while urging expeditious completion of civil proceedings against the petitioner.

In conclusion, the judgment quashes the criminal proceedings against the petitioner due to procedural irregularities, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements and avoiding double jeopardy. The court's decision ensures fairness and upholds legal principles, directing the concerned department to conclude civil proceedings promptly.