1979 (3) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... challan against the petitioners on their failure to deposit the security deposit of Rs. 15,000 within 7 days from the date of the service of the memo issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, under section 7(4a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and thereby committing an offence under section 22(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. On the basis of such challan, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom it was filed, took cognisance against the petitioners and, subsequently, the case was transferred to the 14th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioners filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta, praying for their disc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he alleged commission of the offence particularly when the challan itself shows that the offence was committed during the period between 3rd February, 1965, and 25th August, 1972. Mr. Arun Kumar Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, drew our attention to the provisions of section 11A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and submitted that since the petitioners were admittedly the partners of the firm of M/s. Jugal Kishore Popli and Company, action could be taken against the partners for commission of an offence under section 22(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. It was also contended by Mr. Mukherjee that failure to deposit the security deposit as demanded under section 7(4a) of the said Act was a continuing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y. That being the position, we are of the view that the firm M/s. Jugal Kishore Popli and Company, which is a registered dealer, should have been made an accused and, in the absence of such an accused, the partners of it cannot be prosecuted for violation of the order of the Commissioner to deposit the security deposit. Section 11A of the Act contemplates of a proprietary business being carried on under a trade name, but it has no application to a partnership firm like Jugal Kishore Popli and Company, which is also a registered dealer. In such circumstances, Mr. Dutta was right in arguing that partners alone could not be made vicariously liable for the alleged commission of the offence by the firm and that, in the absence of the firm in the....