TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd they have been made accused in Lalpur P. S. Case No. 56 of 1999 for the offence under sections 49(1)(b), 49(2)(g) and 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. 3. According to the FIR, the said companies, namely, M/s. Sheo Narayan Jaiswal P. Ltd., and M/s. Ellen Breweries and Distilleries P. Ltd., were engaged in manufacturing and sale of country liquor and they are alleged to have violated the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act in submitting their sales tax returns and accordingly, the FIR was lodged against the directors of the said companies, who are the petitioners for the offence under sections 49(1)(b), 49(2)(g) and 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. From the FIR it appears that on the basis of the allegations as detailed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... separate appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) who upheld the said imposition of the penalty and dismissed the appeals by orders dated March 29, 2000. Against the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) separate revision petitions were filed before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. Initially vide judgment dated September 8, 2009, the imposition of penalty was upheld by the Tribunal, but against the said judgment, review petitions were filed in which the penalties imposed on both the companies were set aside by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal vide judgment dated September 7, 2011, passed in those review petitions being R.N. 1 and 2 of 2010. The judgments passed by the Commercial Taxes T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the IPC incorporate the principle of vicarious liability, and therefore, it was incumbent on the complainant to specifically aver the role of each of the accused in the complaint. It would be profitable to extract the following observations made in S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P. [2008] 5 SCC 662, at page 667, paragraph 19 : '19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the company, even if the appellant was its managing director, he cannot be said to have committed an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. If and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefore. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a director of a company or an employee cannot be held to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004] 265 ITR 562/135 Taxman 461. 10. Learned G.A. appearing for the State on the other hand, submitted that it is well-settled principle of law that at the initial stage, the FIR should not be quashed. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta [2004] 1 SCC 691, wherein it has been held that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would sustain or not. The decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that it does not provide for any vicarious liability of a person against whom no role is assigned in commission of any offence under this section. No role is assigned against the petitioners in the entire FIR and the allegation is only against the companies specifically. This apart, the petitioners have also brought on record the fact that even the penalty imposed upon the companies, have been set aside by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal vide judgment dated September 7, 2011, passed in the review petitions bearing Nos. RN 1 and 2 of 2010 which has been brought on record as annexure 5 series. As such, no offence can be said to survive against the petitioners and the prosecution of the petitioners is fit to be quashed on this score as well. ....