9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - CRR 3327 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2022 - RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J. Mr. Sayan Chattopadhyay, Mr. Rokon Ali, Mr. Kaustav Sen, Mr. S. Chakraborty... For the petitioner. Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mrs. Debjni Sahu for the State. Allegation against the petitioner is of concealing the sales figures of his business pertaining to the year from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014(up to 03.12.2013) and by doing the same evading tax upon sales of his product. A criminal case was initiated being Chatterjeehat Police Station Police Case No. 250 of 2015 dated 08.08.2015 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icious against his client to initiate the instant criminal proceeding by dint of FIR filed on 8.8.2015 alleging evasion of tax by his client during the self same period regarding which the notice, as mentioned earlier, was served upon him. By referring to the certified copy of the FIR it has also pointed out that the alleged amount of defalcation is similar to that as has been mentioned in the notice aforestated. Accordingly Mr. Chatterjee submits that his client has been subjected to double jeopardy, to face enquiry as well as investigation on the self-same cause of action, which according to him is not tenable in the eye of law. Therefore, the petitioner has come up by filing this revision case for an order of this Court quashing the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther been submitted on the basis of the case diary that sufficient material would be available against the petitioner to show firstly his involvement in the alleged offence and also prima facie material in the FIR and those collected during investigation, to constitute an offence under the aforestated provisions of law against the petitioner. According to him this will be sufficient for a revision court to deny the petitioner s prayer on the ground that strong prima facie materials are available against the petitioner for which the FIR should not be quashed. He submits that there should not be a mini trial as to the genuinely of the charges, by this revision court. Mr. Ghosh submits that the notice served upon the petitioner dated 6.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the amount of evaded tax by him would be three crores and odd, instead of thirteen crores and odd and that the amount mentioned in the earlier letter dated 08.04.2015 was erroneous. Petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to contradict allegations made in the said letter. On 22.09.2015 the Taxation Tribunal directs the Commissioner to start proceedings to enquire into the alleged defarcation of tax by the present petitioner. During pendency of such a proceeding, the present criminal case was filed on 08.08.2015. FIR reveals that the period of defalcation as mentioned therein would tally with that as has been mentioned in the Department s letters dated 08.04.2015 and 06.05.2015. The alleged amount of evaded tax is also the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nderstood that the criminal case as above was lodged against the petitioner during pendency of the proceeding against him under Section 76 of the Act. As Section 76 has provided for a provision of imposition of penalty in case of finding the dealer to have intentionally evaded tax, unless the said proceeding has reached its finality or any penalty is determined, any prosecution against the petitioner on the same ground would be a bar under Section 88 (13) of the said Act. Otherwise the entire provision would amount to be redundant and not in conformity with the principles of rule of law and natural justice. The argument on behalf of the state that since no penalty has yet been assessed as against the petitioner the said provision shall have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecuted. This is a trite law and cannot be ignored. However, a criminal proceeding which is inherently unsustainable due to non-compliance of the specific and mandatory preconditional statutory provision, can always be a subject matter of consideration for a revision court, as to whether it is to be allowed to continue or not. The revision court is bestowed with the responsibilities and power to see if the process of the court is being abused or not. In doing so, the proceedings, if are found to be inherently lacking the mandates of law with which it was supposed to be initiated, the court shall not be powerless to interfere with a such proceeding. This is what has exactly happened in this case. The petitioner is now facing proceedings wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
