TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court modifies sentencing for fraud, orders arrest for tax violation</h1> <h3>State Versus Kantilal Maganlal</h3> State Versus Kantilal Maganlal - [1956] 7 STC 413 (Bom) Issues:1. Leniency in sentencing for serious offenses under IPC and Bombay Sales Tax Act.2. Jurisdictional issue regarding the trial of the accused under section 465 read with section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.Analysis:The accused was charged with offenses under section 465 read with section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 36(g) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The accused, a businessman, was found to have fabricated false bills to defraud the State of its legitimate dues. The trial Magistrate, despite the seriousness of the offenses, imposed a lenient sentence of a small fine and short imprisonment periods, considering the accused's admission of guilt and plea for mercy. However, the High Court found the leniency unjustified given the gravity of the offenses, emphasizing the accused's depravity of character in maintaining false accounts and fabricating bills to deceive the authorities.Regarding the jurisdictional issue, the High Court noted a recent case holding that the Sales Tax Officer is considered a 'Court' under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As a result, offenses falling under that section cannot be tried by a Court without a complaint filed by the Court before which the document was produced. Therefore, the High Court set aside the conviction under section 465 read with section 471 of the IPC due to lack of jurisdiction by the trial Magistrate. The fine imposed for this offense was remitted. However, the conviction under section 36(g) of the Sales Tax Act was upheld, and the sentence was modified to one month's simple imprisonment in place of the fine. The High Court ordered the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the accused to serve the revised sentence, thereby rectifying the jurisdictional error while ensuring appropriate punishment for the offenses committed.
TaxTMI 