Fraudulent tax evasion through forged invoices remains punishable despite an ineffective taxation notification and no prior complaint bar.

Fraudulent suppression of turnover by forged invoices and false statements constitutes evasion of tax legally due under the general charging provision, even if a single-point taxation notification is ineffective for want of supporting rules; liability under the penal provision for fraudulent evasion therefore remains. A Sales Tax Officer, despite exercising quasi-judicial assessment functions, is an assessing and taxing authority and not a court for the complaint-bar rule in criminal procedure. As a result, the absence of a prior complaint by that officer does not prevent prosecution for forgery-related offences, and the convictions were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had fraudulently evaded payment of tax so as to attract liability under section 14(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, despite the ineffectiveness of the single-point notification under section 3-A; (ii) Whether a Sales Tax Officer is a court within section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, so that a complaint by such officer was a condition precedent to prosecution under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had fraudulently evaded payment of tax so as to attract liability under section 14(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, despite the ineffectiveness of the single-point notification under section 3-A.

Analysis: The liability to tax under section 3 remained applicable to every dealer on turnover, while section 3-A only provided a mechanism for single-point taxation. Although the notification issued under section 3-A was ineffective because it was not supported by the prescribed rules, the appellants nevertheless used forged invoices and false statements to secure exclusion of sales from their turnover. Their conduct was directed to avoiding tax otherwise payable under section 3, and section 14(d) penalised fraudulent evasion of tax due under the Act. The fact that the notification was ineffective did not absolve the appellants, because the evasion was of tax lawfully due under the general charging provision.

Conclusion: The appellants were liable under section 14(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the conviction on that count was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether a Sales Tax Officer is a court within section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, so that a complaint by such officer was a condition precedent to prosecution under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: A Sales Tax Officer, though empowered to assess tax and to perform certain quasi-judicial functions, remains an assessing and taxing authority and not a court. The statutory scheme showed that his powers were administrative and fiscal rather than judicial in the strict sense. The existence of enquiry powers, appeals, revisions, and duties to call for documents did not convert the officer into a court or revenue court for purposes of section 195. Since the officer was not a court, the absence of a complaint by him did not bar cognizance of the forgery-related offence.

Conclusion: A Sales Tax Officer is not a court within section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and no prior complaint was necessary.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax is legally due under the charging provision of a fiscal statute, deliberate use of forged documents to suppress turnover constitutes fraudulent evasion of tax, and a taxing authority exercising quasi-judicial powers is not thereby transformed into a court for the purpose of the complaint bar under section 195 of the criminal procedure law.

---