TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court dismisses petition to quash proceedings, orders trial completion in six months.</h1> The petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed, directing the trial court to complete the trial within six months. The court upheld the competency of ... Maintainability of Revision Petition - revision petitions dismissed only on the ground that already charges were framed and trial has been commenced in all the cases - Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue prosecution sanction against the defaulting dealer - sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The only point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the competent authority did not accord any sanction to prosecute the petitioner herein - HELD THAT:- The competent officer accorded sanction for prosecution to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 49(2)(a), 49(2)(b) and 27(2)(b) r/w 27(3) of Pondicherry General Sales Tax 1967 r/w Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and under Section 409 and r/w 34 of IPC - Further this Court also finds that there are prima facie materials to attract the offences under Sections 49(2)(a), 49(2)(b) and 27(2)(b) r/w 27(3) of Pondicherry General Sales Tax 1967 r/w Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and under Section 409 and r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court dismissed the discharge petition not only on the ground that already the charges were framed and trial commenced but also on merits, as stated above. This quash petition is nothing but to clear abuse of process of Court, since the petitioner already filed discharge petition and the same was dismissed on merits. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Competency of the officer who accorded sanction for prosecution.2. Prima facie allegations against the petitioner.3. Abuse of process of Court through repeated petitions.4. Applicability of legal precedents on quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Detailed Analysis:1. Competency of the officer who accorded sanction for prosecution:The petitioner argued that the officer who accorded sanction for prosecution lacked competency. The trial court dismissed this argument, stating that the Commissioner (CT) was competent by virtue of the Repeal and Saving Clause under Section 81(2) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The petitioner’s subsequent revision petitions were also dismissed. The respondent countered by citing G.O.Ms.No.270/69/F5 and G.O.Ms.No.45/97/F2, which empower officers of the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and above to accord sanction for prosecution. The court upheld that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was competent to issue the prosecution sanction.2. Prima facie allegations against the petitioner:The petitioner was charged under Sections 49(2)(a), 49(2)(b), and 27(2)(b) r/w 27(3) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax 1967, Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007, and Section 409 r/w 34 of IPC. The prosecution alleged large-scale suppression of purchase and sales turnover from 2000-2001 to 2005-06, resulting in tax and penalty arrears of Rs. 1,42,41,862/-. The trial court found prima facie allegations sufficient to proceed with the case, which was confirmed by the High Court. The court reiterated that the prosecution must prove its case during the trial, and the competency of the sanctioning authority could be decided at that stage.3. Abuse of process of Court through repeated petitions:The court noted that the petitioner had repeatedly filed discharge petitions and revision petitions, which were dismissed. The current petition was seen as an attempt to delay the proceedings, constituting an abuse of the court process. The court emphasized that the trial must proceed without further hindrance, as previous petitions had already been dismissed on merits.4. Applicability of legal precedents on quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C:The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, and M. Jayanthi Vs. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., which held that the High Court should not evaluate the validity of evidence or delve into disputed facts while hearing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court should only determine if the allegations form the basis for the offences alleged. The court concluded that the petitioner's arguments could be raised during the trial, and the trial court should complete the trial within six months.Conclusion:The petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months. The court found that the competent authority had validly accorded the prosecution sanction and that there were prima facie materials to proceed with the trial. The petition was deemed an abuse of the court process, and the petitioner was advised to raise all grounds during the trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
