2024 (12) TMI 4 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Rejection of prayer of the petitioners for representation by their advocate - challenge to quash CR Case - Prosecution proceedings against the Partners of the Firm for evasion of Tax - HELD THAT - From the record of proceeding, it is seen that having registered the C.R. case, a summon has already been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had entered appearance through the learned counsel before the learned trial Court below. Though it is contended in this petition, the prayer for representation of the petitioner is disallowed, the order sheets annexed along with this petition donot disclose anything to that effect rather the order sheet reflects that the petitioner s application for adjournment and for his absence was duly considered by the learned trial Court below by order dated 13.12.2012. This Court has also perused the complaint filed by the authorities as recorded hereinabove, and reading of the aforesaid materials if taken on its face value discloses the offences as alleged inasmuch as this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot go into the factual dispute and allegation as raised in the present case more particularly, when such facts are not admitted by the Taxation department. The criminal petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated - LCR be returned back.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to quash CR Case under various tax acts, representation by advocate denied, challenge to proceeding initiated by Magistrate.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a CR Case registered under different tax acts against the partners of a company. The petitioners challenged the order of cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the rejection of their prayer for representation by their advocate. The case involved offenses under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act, and Assam Entry Tax Act. The Commissioner of Taxes had sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioners. The petitioners had been issued summons, and the proceedings had been ongoing since 2011.

The petitioners contended that they had been directed to pay a substantial amount towards tax recovery, and they had been complying with the court's orders regarding the payment of installments. The High Court had previously directed the petitioners to pay the balance amount with monthly installments. In another proceeding, the petitioners were directed to furnish an indemnity bond with immovable property. Despite the payments made by the petitioners, the criminal proceeding before the Magistrate was challenged.

The Court noted that there was material on record indicating the offenses alleged against the petitioners. It observed that the petitioners had appeared through their counsel before the trial court, and the petitioners' application for adjournment had been considered. The Court emphasized that it could not delve into factual disputes or allegations not admitted by the Taxation department under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the criminal petition was dismissed, and any interim orders were vacated. The Court clarified that the petitioners could file an application to be represented through a lawyer, which would be considered as per the law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the CR Case under various tax acts, citing the presence of material disclosing the alleged offenses. The Court emphasized the petitioners' right to apply for legal representation in the future.