https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128529 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. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:03:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128529 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 07 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128529