9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their business place were those of an insane son of the dealer and that they should not be relied upon. The arguments were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed. Hence the revisions. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that before the Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that the District Magistrate, Gooty, in C.C. No. 73 of 1953 on his file held that the books, on the basis of which the assessment was made, did not belong to the assessee and that finding was binding on the Tribunal, but that the Tribunal omitted to consider that point. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal on the 31st October, 1955. The District Magistrate delivered the judgment on 15th June, 1955. In the memorandum of grounds filed in this Court, the petitioner alleged that this point had been taken before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal did not give its decision thereon. The Government Pleader, though he says that the record does not disclose any such point was made or the said judgment was filed, is not in a position to assert that this point was not in fact raised before the Tribunal at the time of the arguments. In the circumstances, we think that in the interests of justice it is necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises were those of the appellant's insane son and cannot therefore be relied upon. But the Commercial Tax Officer rejected the said contention and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals rejecting that contention "rightly" as observed by the High Court. It was, however, urged before the High Court, that in C.C. No. 73 of 1955 which was filed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer against this appellant the District Magistrate of Gooty held "that the books on the basis of which the assessment was made do not belong to the assessee and that the finding was binding upon the Tribunal, but that the Tribunal omitted to consider that point". The complaint filed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer against this appellant was that he committed an offence under section 15(a) read with rule 11(1) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules by not submitting the return of his turnover for 1953-54 within the time allowed. Under rule 11(1) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, every dealer whose net turnover reaches Rs. 10,000 in any year is liable to submit the return in Form A on or before the 1st day of May showing the actual gross and net turnover for the preceding year and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Supplies Act in C.C. No. 602 of 1950 on the file of A.F.C.M's Court, Mangalore. But he was acquitted on 6th January, 1951. The Regional Transport Officer meanwhile issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why his permit should not be cancelled or suspended as the lorry was engaged in smuggling foodgrains. On 3rd March, 1951 (that is nearly two months after his acquittal), the petitioner's permit was suspended by an order of the Regional Transport Officer. The petitioner then filed an application before the Regional Transport Officer specifically bringing to his notice the order of acquittal dated 6th January, 1951, and requested him to reconsider his previous order. But this application was also dismissed on 31st March, 1951. Upon these facts their Lordships observed as follows: "We have no hesitation in making it clear that a quasi Judicial Tribunal like the Regional Transport Authority or the Appellate Tribunal therefrom cannot ignore the findings and orders of competent Criminal Courts in respect of an offence when the Tribunal proceeds to take any action on the basis of the commission of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved that the connection could not be deemed to be established in the absence of more satisfactory evidence and such a conclusion is no bar to the Tribunal arriving at its own conclusions on the material before it regarding the connection between the accused and the accounts in question. The acquittal of the accused by the Criminal Court is conclusive so far as the offence for which he was tried is concerned. The departmental officer and the Tribunal are no doubt precluded, in view of the acquittal, from taking any punitive action against the appellant for that default, namely, non-submission of the return in time. But it does not enable the appellant to escape assessment altogether when there is appropriate material before the Tribunal to justify the levy of assessment against him. On receipt of the above-said findings of the Andhra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Court delivered the following judgment: JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANADHAM CHETTY, J.-On 22nd November, 1956, the High Court called from the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal findings on the following points: (1) Whether, as a matter of fact, the petitioner placed before the Tribunal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected saying that the entries were mere scribblings of an insane member of the family and did not represent the transactions of the business. The plea was rejected and the assessment made on the figures proposed by the officer on 30th January, 1955. The assessees appealed to the Commercial Tax Officer, who confirmed the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 5th March, 1955. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer then launched a prosecution against the assessees for an offence of failure to furnish the return due under rule 11(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules punishable under section 15(a) of the Act. The criminal case ended in an acquittal. The District Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In his judgment the learned Magistrate adverted to the contention of the accused that Exs. P-3 to p-5 did not belong to them at all and that Exs. P-1 and P-2, which were not disowned by the accused, did not yield data for a turnover exceeding Rs. 10,000. The findings of the learned Magistrate are expressed thus: "Exs. P-4 and P-5 do not bear the name of the accused. Exs. P-3 and P-4 bore the printed letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to reject the finding if it is adverse to them. Prima facie the argument sounds plausible but on an analysis of the legal position, leaves us in no doubt that it is wholly untenable. For the assessees reliance is placed on the principle of the decision in Jerome D'Silva v. Regional Transport Authority(1952) 1 M.L.J. 35. In the said case, a driver of a lorry was prosecuted by the police for carrying smuggled rice in the lorry, under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The Magistrate, after a full enquiry discharged the accused holding that the accusation was baseless. While the case was pending, the Regional Transport Officer required the owner of the lorry to show cause against the cancellation or suspension of the lorry permit. An explanation was offered but was rejected and the permit was suspended. Sometime earlier, an order of acquittal had been passed by the Magistrate. Subsequently, the owner filed an application before the Regional Transport Officer for reviewing his decision. The petitioner was treated as an appeal and was dismissed by the Regional Transport Authority. The owner moved the High Court of Madr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch that a conflict of findings between two Courts on the same subject were avoided but could find no provision in the Evidence Act which could obviate it. Their Lordships observe: "I must admit that it would have been a good thing to avoid conflict of opinions between the two Courts if it were legally possible so to do but in the absence of any provision to that effect in the Evidence Act, I cannot see how could this be avoided as long as it is possible for two independent Judges to come to two different findings on the same evidence." The learned Government Pleader relies on Venkatapathi v. Balappa65 M.L.J. 146. and Kutumbarao v. Venkatramayya(1950) 2 M.L.J. 336.for the view that what can be proved in a case for damages for malicious prosection is not the contents and findings in the judgment of acquittal or discharge by a Criminal Court but only the ultimate result, that is, the factum of acquittal or discharge. In Ramanamma v. Appala Narasayya62 M.L.J. 230., a criminal complaint and a suit for damages for defamation were filed. The suit was dismissed. The judgment of the Civil Court was sought to be admitted as evidence in the criminal case. It was the converse of the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted, can hardly find an echo in civil litigation. If the same principle should be extended to the realm of taxation, the consequences on the economy of the State may well be imagined. It is undeniable that so far as the Civil Courts and Tribunals, to which the provisions of the Evidence Act apply, are concerned, the judgment of the Criminal Court is not admissible in evidence under sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. The procedure of the quasi Judicial Tribunals, to which the provisions of the Evidence Act do not in terms apply, should conform to cardinal rules of evidence if injustice should be obviated. See Rex v. Kingston-Upon Hull Rent Tribunal65 T.L.R. 209. and Moxon v. Minister of Pensions [1945] K.B. 490. Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act may be taken as embodying primary and fundamental principles governing admissibility of judgments and unless the assessees are able to bring their case within the permissible ambit of the said provisions, they may not be heard to rely on their success in the Criminal Court. The learned advocate for the assessees, as already referred to, stresses that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, having elected to prosecute the assessees invi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal. In Jerome D'Silva v. Regional Transport Authority[1952] 1 M.L.J. 35. cited for the assessees, the Madras High Court definitely limited the scope and ambit of the exception which they were making to the general rule of inadmissibility. In stating that if there is a conviction by a competent Criminal Court that would operate as a conclusive bar against any penal action by the transport authorities, their Lordships were limiting the ban to further action in the nature of a punishment or penalty by the quasi-judicial authority. We express no opinion on the question as it does not arise in the case in hand, inasmuch as assessment proceedings in the normal course cannot be characterised as penal or punitive. The finding of the Magistrate is not binding on the Tribunal and we hold that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the plea of acquittal by the Criminal Court. The next question is whether the assessment can be sustained on merits. This is no doubt a border case. While the taxable limit has been fixed by section 3(3) of the Sales Tax Act at Rs. 10,000 the estimate of which the department has made is at Rs. 12,452-6-1 for 1952-53 and Rs. 10,353-9-6 for 1953-54. As the quantum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
