Wilful false return under sales tax law requires proof of knowledge and participation; only the signing partner remained liable.

A statement recorded from a partner was not inadmissible merely because it arose in a departmental inquiry, and a notebook seized from the firm, read with the regular accounts, was sufficient to show omissions, suppression of stock and purchases, and falsity of the sales tax return. Criminal liability for wilfully submitting an untrue return required proof of mens rea: the partner who signed and submitted the return remained liable, but non-signing partners could not be convicted absent evidence that they knew of the falsity or knowingly participated in the suppression. The conviction was therefore maintained only against the signing partner, while the others were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement obtained from a partner and the notebook seized from the firm could be relied on to prove wilful submission of an untrue return under the sales tax law; (ii) Whether partners who did not sign the return could be criminally liable for the offence of wilfully submitting an untrue return.

Issue (i): Whether the statement obtained from a partner and the notebook seized from the firm could be relied on to prove wilful submission of an untrue return under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The statement was not treated as inadmissible merely because it had been prepared in the course of departmental inquiry, but its evidentiary worth depended on the manner in which it was recorded and signed. The notebook was accepted as an account book relating to the firm's transactions, and its contents, when compared with the regular accounts, disclosed omissions and suppression of stock and purchases. That material was held sufficient, along with the surrounding circumstances, to establish the falsity of the return.

Conclusion: The evidence was held sufficient to prove that the return submitted on behalf of the firm was false.

Issue (ii): Whether partners who did not sign the return could be criminally liable for the offence of wilfully submitting an untrue return.

Analysis: The offence required wilfulness and therefore a mental element. Liability could attach to the partner who actually submitted the false return, but absent proof that the other partners knew of the falsity or knowingly excluded taxable items, the element of mens rea was not established against them. Criminal responsibility could not be fastened on partners who had no direct role in the submission of the return and against whom no wilful participation was shown.

Conclusion: The non-signing partners were not liable and were entitled to acquittal, while the partner who signed and submitted the return remained liable.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part: the conviction of the partner who submitted the return was maintained, but the other partners were acquitted and the fine recovered from them was ordered to be refunded.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence requiring wilful submission of a false return cannot be fastened on partners in the absence of proof of their knowledge of falsity or other evidence establishing mens rea; criminal liability follows the person who actually makes or procures the false return.

---