2018 (1) TMI 742

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 190(1) of Cr.P.C. alleging tax evasions which were punishable under the provisions of the Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 r/w Puducherry Value Added Tax Ac, 2007. Pending cases, the petitioner filed applications seeking to discharge him from the charges. The learned Magistrate by an individual order dated 15.09.2012 refused to discharge the petitioner from the charges and dismissed all his applications . It is this order now under challenge in this revision case. 2. The case of the complainant/1st respondent herein in C.C.No.301 of 2008 in brief is as follows:- There are totally three accused in the case. A1 is a partnership firm. A2 and A3 are partners of the firm. The petitioner is A2. They were running the business of resale o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial year 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 also. Hence, the assessing authority initiated separate proceedings and on failure of the accused to pay the tax and penalty separate complaints have been filed. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences and issued summons to all the accused. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate framed charges. The accused denied the charges and they opted for trial. Accordingly, the cases were posted for trial. 4. While so, petitioner/A2 filed a petition under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge him from the charges on the ground that he got retired from the partnership firm as early as on 01.10.1999 due to some personal reasons and in his place one Mr.Palaniappan was inducted as a partner in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ship firm as early as on 01.10.1999 and on his retirement, the partnership was duly reconstituted by inducting Mr.Palaniappan as a partner in the place of the petitioner. It was also duly intimated to the authorities concerned. According to him, the fact, as borne out of records, would be that the petitioner has sent a letter dated 07.04.2003 stating that two existing partners were to retire from 31.03.2003 and the constitution changed from partnership to proprietory concern w.e.f. 01.04.2003 which was not disputed by the department. This would go to show that the petitioner retired from the partnership firm as early as in the year 2003 and he cannot be mulcted with any criminal liability. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate wou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and therefore, the authority initiated proceedings under law. 12. According to the petitioner, by the time when the alleged suppressions of actual sales turn over were noticed, the petitioner was not at all the partner of the firm and he retired from the partnership firm as early as on 01.10.1999 which was much prior to the alleged tax evasion and it was also duly intimated to the department and as a matter of fact, the firm was subsequently reconstituted with a new partner in the place of retiring partner. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in attempt to convince this court would submit that by letter dated 08.04.2003, as it could be borne out of the records, the department has accepted the receipt of Form-10 filed by A1 f....