TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as financial liability of payment of tax was concerned, the same has been discharged by the petitioners by making payment of total amount found due against them. He places reliance on Annexure PNeutral 2 in this regard and submits that this material fact has not been denied by the respondent authorities. He further places reliance on the judgment dated 5.3.2012 passed in Crl Misc. M-26116 of 2010 (Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another), wherein a similar controversy fell for consideration before this Court and the matter was finally decided in favour of the petitioners therein, quashing the FIR alongwith subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. He concluded by submittin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....@ Iqbal Singh and another, 2005 (4) RCR (criminal) 855. The relevant observations made by this Court in Pritpal Singh's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:- "A perusal of sub Section (4) of Section 51 of the VAT Act makes out the provisions 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. Section 51 (7) (a) and (b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act reads thus:- (7) (a) The officer detaining the goods under sub section (6) shall record the statement, if any, given by the consignor or consignee of the goods or his representative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value of the goods. Thus, there is no provision of registration of FIR in such like matters of evading the tax. The provisions provide for the mandatory penalty. It is well settled proposition of law that if a special provision has been made qua particular subject, the said subject is excluded from the general provisions. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Singh (supra) held that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was a special Act and, therefore, in the facts of the case it would apply, which means that coaccused 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 the respondent that a Court takes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner helped the main accused to evade the tax under no circumstances invite the offence of Section 420 of IPC, in case, the person is found guilty of evading the tax. The Punjab Value Added Tax Act provides for payment of penalty. The provisions of the said VAT Act are sufficient and equipped to deal with the matters where an attempt is made to evade the tax. Thus, the registration of the FIR in such like matters is totally an abuse of process of law. Once an FIR cannot be registered against a person who evaded the tax, no FIR can be registered against a person who is stated to have assisted and the person who has attempted to evade the tax. In view of the above discussion as well as facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 74....