Inherent quashing jurisdiction limited where complaint discloses tax offences and disputed facts cannot be resolved at the threshold.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was declined where the complaint and sanction papers, read at face value, disclosed alleged contraventions under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, the Central Sales Tax Act and the Assam Entry Tax Act. The Court held that disputed factual assertions, including the plea that legal representation had been denied, could not be examined in quashing proceedings when the record did not clearly support them and the taxing authorities did not admit them. On that basis, interference with the criminal proceeding, summoning order and connected prosecution was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding, summoning order and connected prosecution for alleged tax offences warranted interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint and sanction papers disclosed alleged contraventions under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008. The record showed that summons had been issued and that the accused had entered appearance through counsel. The material placed on record also did not establish, on the face of the record, that the trial court had refused legal representation in the manner pleaded. In exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the Court declined to enter into disputed factual allegations, particularly when the taxation authorities did not admit those facts and the complaint, read at face value, disclosed the alleged offences.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected and the criminal petition was dismissed.

---