Sales tax liability cannot be inferred from mere receipt of goods where an agent lacks authority to sell and no taxable sale is shown.

Criminal proceedings based on alleged sales tax evasion were quashed because the supposed tax liability arose from a misconceived assumption that mere receipt of wheat consignments from outside the State created a taxable event. The Court noted that no sale had been shown, no sales tax was then payable on receipt alone, and the petitioner acted only as an agent for the proprietor without authority to sell the goods in the ordinary course of business. In the absence of a close and direct nexus between any taxable sale and the petitioner's conduct, allegations of criminal conspiracy and corruption could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding and cognizance against the petitioner were liable to be quashed on the ground that the alleged sales tax liability arose from a misconceived assumption of tax evasion by an agent receiving wheat consignments from outside the State.

Analysis: The proceeding was founded on an allegation that the consignee had evaded sales tax on wheat brought from outside the State and that the petitioner, as agent, had conspired with sales tax officials in taking delivery without payment of tax. The Court held that, under the relevant sales tax framework, the taxable event in respect of the wheat had not yet occurred merely on receipt of the consignment inside the State, and there was nothing to show that the goods had been sold or that any sales tax was then payable on the receipt itself. The petitioner was found to be only an agent acting on behalf of the proprietor, without authority in the customary course of business to sell the goods, and there was no close and direct connection between the alleged sale transaction and the petitioner sufficient to fasten sales tax liability on him or to sustain an allegation of conspiracy.

Conclusion: No offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was made out against the petitioner, and the proceeding against him was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged tax default is based on a misconceived assumption of liability and the accused is only a receiving agent without authority to sell, criminal conspiracy and corruption charges cannot be sustained in the absence of a proximate nexus with a taxable sale or other legally enforceable duty.

---