TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (9) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Rules. The charge was based on the fact that on 26th August, 1957, when their shop was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer (P.W. 1) and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (P.W. 2), it was found that they had not entered in their day book (exhibit P-7) (1) items 12 and 24 to 36 of the cloth purchased under a bill (exhibit P-4) dated 5th August, 1957; (2) all the items purchased under a bill (exhibit P-5) dated 22nd August, 1957 and (3) all the items purchased under a third bill (exhibit P-6) dated 10th August, 1957. The defence was that they did not enter items 12 and 24 to 36 of exhibit P-4, because the weavers who supplied. them did not turn up at the shop and the purchase money could not therefore be paid to them. In regard to exhibi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for(h) the maintenance of purchase bills or accounts of purchases and sales by dealers carrying on business in specified goods and the time for which they should be preserved. (3) In making a rule under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the State Government may provide that a person guilty of a breach thereof, shall, on conviction by a Magistrate of the first class, be liable to be punished with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees." Section 25 of the Act runs thus: "25. Every person licensed or registered under this Act, every dealer liable to get himself registered under this Act, and every other d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not be ascertained or if there is a bona fide mistake in making the entries or if the accounts could not be kept owing to some accident or misfortune (vide section 80 read with section 40, Indian Penal Code) the breach of rule 45(1) would not be punishable. It was contended on behalf of the respondents, with success before the learned Magistrate, that as the rules do not prescribe a time within which the entries have to be made, it would be sufficient if the entries are made before the goods are sold. Such a construction would practically read the words "bought and sold" in clause (i) of rule 45 (1) in combination with each other. It is not disputed by the learned counsel here that they have to be read disjunctively. Whenever goods a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, pointed out that full particulars of the railway receipts relating to them were entered in the "railway receipt book" (exhibit D-8). He further pointed out that there are entries (exhibits D-6 and D-7) in the daybook, showing the incidental expenses connected with the consignment. But neither the railway receipt book nor the daybook entries (exhibits D-6 and D-7) mention the value of the goods. It follows that they are of no avail to show compliance with rule 45. Another point stressed on behalf of the respondents is that the practice of entering the goods in the daybook after the weavers are actually paid was not previously objected to by the Commercial Tax Officers. Although this was stated by D.W. 2 in his evidence, it was not specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave to take some preliminary steps before it is possible to make the necessary entries in the accounts. It was finally urged by Sri T. Bali Reddy that the respondents are not shown to have had any intention to evade the tax. He urged that mens rea has to be proved in all criminal cases and relied in this connection on Srinivas Mail v. Emperor(1) and Hariprasada Rao v. The State(2). But these were cases in which the question of mens rea arose for (1) [1947] A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 135. (2) [1951] A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 204. consideration in connection with vicarious liability. As observed by Wills, J., in The Queen v. Tolson(1): "Although prima facie and as a general rule there must be a mind at fault before there can be a crime, it is not an inflexible ....