TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the name of V & V Match Works, Vadayampady. He was a registered dealer on the rolls of Sales Tax Office, Second Circle, Perumbavoor. The registration was taken on 14/11/1995 to conduct the business in match veneers. At the time when the petitioner joined as a Sales Tax Officer in 1999, the dealer did not renew the registration, but it was not cancelled, revoked, or surrendered. During the petitioner's tenure as Sales Tax Officer, Perumbavoor, on 31/12/2001, the dealer requested to renew the registration, add core veneer in the registration certificate, and issue delivery notes for transporting goods outside the State. It was submitted that he could not continue the business due to his father's illness, and he would like to resume the business w.e.f. 1/1/2002. On receipt of the request, during the tenure of the petitioner, the registration was renewed by accepting the necessary renewal fee and compounding fee. The request of the dealer to add core veneer to the registration certificate was allowed. The delivery notes were also issued. The petitioner was, thereafter, relieved from the office of the Sales Tax, Second Circle, Perumbavoor, on 29/4/2002. One Sri. K.K. Thankappa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sujesh Menon submitted that the allegations in the final report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out any case against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the same set of facts, he was exonerated of the charges framed against him, and once a person is exonerated of the charges in the departmental enquiry, criminal proceedings against him on same facts shall not be continued. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI [(2020) 9 SCC 636]. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor Smt.S.Rekha submitted that there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime and when prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. The counsel further submitted that the exoneration of a person in departmental proceedings would not ipso facto lead to the exoneration of him in the criminal proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dealer despite the business and his properties being sold to one Jayalakshmi much earlier on 25/2/1999. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority found that the first and fourth charges were proved against the petitioner. A punishment of barring three years increments without cumulative effect in the scale of pay that existed prior to the retirement was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Government. The Government found that there is no reason to deviate from the findings and recommendations of the Enquiry Authority and, accordingly, the disciplinary action initiated was dropped. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings and recommendations of the Enquiry Authority are in respect of the same set of allegations which is the subject matter of criminal proceedings, and since the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner is totally innocent of all the charges levelled against him, which the Government confirmed in appeal, the criminal prosecution is unsustainable in law. 8. The question whether the exoneration of a person in departmental enquiry ipso facto would exonerate him from the criminal proceedings came up for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not whether an accused can be exonerated from criminal proceedings on the ground that he was exonerated in departmental proceedings. In Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), the Apex Court relied on its earlier decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal [(2011) 3 SCC 581] which dealt with the effect of adjudication proceedings on criminal prosecution. The effect of the exoneration of a person in departmental proceedings on the criminal prosecution against the accused was not an issue in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra). The issue therein was the effect of adjudication proceedings on criminal prosecution. In these circumstances, the dictum laid down in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) cannot be applied in a case where the accused who was facing criminal prosecution was exonerated in departmental proceedings. A Single Bench of this Court on similar facts followed Ajay Kumar Tyagi (supra) in Rajesh Kumar (supra). For these reasons, I hold that the criminal prosecution against an accused can very well be initiated or continued, notwithstanding his exoneration on the identical charge in the departmental proceedings. 9. Coming to the merits of the case, the crux of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss in match veneer since 1995. Carrying business on core veneer is a similar nature of business. A trader in match veneer can do business in core veneer also. There is no law prohibiting a dealer to do business in core veneer. As per SRO 1095/99, the Government has notified the items coming under the category of "packing materials". The core veneer is not specifically mentioned in the notification as it is an entirely distinct commodity. It was not classified as an "evasion prone commodity" at that time. The dealer was carrying on business in match veneer and since core veneer is a business of similar nature, the petitioner permitted to include the commodity in the registration certificate. Hence, the action of the petitioner in amending the registration certificate to incorporate core veneer cannot be said to be in violation of any statutory provisions. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per Circular No. 31/1997/TX dated 15/12/1997, when an application for registration of business in timber and packing case is received, the registering authority, after scrutiny of such application, should forward the same to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) (Intellig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and action of the accused contrary to rules and norms without culpable state of mind would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant. [See C.K. Jaffer Sharief v State (2013) 1 SCC 205]. The dishonest intention is a prerequisite to attract the offence of criminal misconduct. Form 18 declarations are used for the purchase of the raw materials for the production of finished goods. Going by the final report, issuance of Form 18 is the instance which led to revenue loss to the State exchequer. Admittedly, the petitioner did not issue Form 18 declaration to the dealer during his tenure in the office. It was issued by his successor only on 26/8/2002. The petitioner is no way directly responsible for the issuance and consequential misuse of Form 18 declaration. Form 26 delivery note is a transporting document. The petitioner issued delivery note to facilitate interstate sale only. The prosecution has no case that the Form 26 delivery note issued by the petitioner was misused or any revenue loss was occurred to the Government during his tenure. Thus, there is absolutely nothing to attract Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner. 13. To bring home the cha....