TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ab in order to evade tax, was committing the offence of cheating and they had ties with one firm at Tibbi Hari Singh who provided them the bills of his firm with the help of which these persons made further supplies. The name of the firm situated at Tibbi Hari Singh Wali was Jai Jagdambey Industry. Thus, by cheating the Government in evading tax, they were doing illegal acts. Along with these persons, there were others involved as well. The said Narinder Sintgh was going towards the side of Jalandhar with the tanker of furnace oil and if a Nakabandi was done, he could be caught along with the tanker loaded with oil without any barrier receipts. Based on the said information, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, Narinder Singh was arrested and the aforesaid oil tanker containing furnace oil was recovered. During the course of investigation Narinder Singh disclosed that he used to obtain bills etc. of the firm of the petitioner who was in connivance with them. After completion of investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while praying fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Corruption Act, 1988 was a special Act and, therefore, in the facts of the case it would apply, which means that co-accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the absence of sanction. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as under:- 8. The contention raised by learned counsel for therespondent that a Court takes cognizance of an offence and not of an offender holds good when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. The observations made by this Court in Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar (supra) were also made in that context. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute and as the preamble shows this Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. Here, the principle expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant would apply which means that if a special provision has been made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provisions. (See Venkateshwar Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 828, State of Bihar v. Yogendra Singh AIR 1982 SC 882 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o deny this legal position. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No.101 dated 30.09.2012 along with all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner." {emphasis supplied} In the case of Subhash Chander @ Subhash Kumar Versus State of Punjab (supra), it was held as under:- "The FIR was registered for not paying the entry tax and for committing offence under Sections 420/120B IPC and Section 4 of the Punjab Tax Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2000 and a challan was presented therein. This fact has been so stated in the written statement dated 7.7.2014. A reference at this stage can be made to Coordinate Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Pritpal Singh vs State of Punjab and another decided on 5.3.2012, where this Court had held that violations under the VAT Act was civil in nature and as per the provisions of Punjab Vat Act, a person without the documents or with no genuine documents carrying the articles in the goods vehicle, is liable to be punished with penalty of 30% of the value of the goods. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Singh vs P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve a notice on the consignor or consignee of the goods detained under clause (a) of sub section (6) and give him an opportunity of being heard and if, after the inquiry, such officer finds that there has been an attempt to avoid or evade the tax due or likely to be due under this Act, he shall, by order, impose on the consignor or consignee of the goods, a penalty, which shall be equal to thirty percent of the value of the goods. In case, he finds otherwise, he shall order release of the goods and the vehicle, if not already released, after recording reasons in writing and shall decide the matter finally within a period of fourteen days from the commencement of the inquiry proceedings. A perusal of sub Section (7) (a) of Section 51 of the VAT Act lays down the provisions for penalty of 50% of the value of the goods if the vehicle is going without any documents. Under Section 51 (4) of the Act, there is a provision of imposition of penalty of 50% of the value of the goods involved if the driver has failed to deliver within forty eight hours the transit receipt to the Officer Incharge of the check post or information Collection Centre. Sub Section (7) (b) of Section 51 of th....