This revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahe, passed in S.T.C.No.1812 of 2015 on 18.12.2015.
2. The case of the prosecution is that dealing with live chicken attracts Value Added Tax under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and the accused 1 and 2 having procured the same at Palladam, Tiruppur District, Tamil Nadu (no VAT being leviable in the State of Tamil Nadu) effected sale thereof at Mahe which falls within the Puducherry State. In doing so, they grossly undervalued the live stock purchased by them and thereby effected payment of tax in a reduced sum. As such, they evaded payment of VAT. The revised assessment order of the Assessing Authority dated 06.07.2015 is as follows: Tax Period Total quantity of live chicken purchased Rate determined as per prevailing market rate Sales turnover determined Sales turnover reported by the dealer Tax due @ 5% Tax paid Balance tax payable Penalty Apr'2012 203820 60.00 12229200 7125000 611460 356250 255210 255210 May'2012 309670 70.26 21757414 10400000 1087871 520000 567871 567871 Jun'2012 186540 73.40 13692036 5810000 684602 290500 394102 394102 July'2012 197170 55.00 10844350 5842000 542218 292100 250118 250118 Aug'2012 274850 57.30 15748905 8458000 787445 708890 78555 78555 1172050 74271905 37635000 3713596 2167740 1545856 1545856 The complaint was preferred against four accused/respondents herein for offences u/s.59(2)(a), 59(2)(d) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 r/w 34 IPC, Rules 57, 19, 45 & 49 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 r/w
Section 34 IPC and 463, 464, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC. Court below took cognizance against accused 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 59(2)(a) and 59(2)(d) of Puducherry Value Added Tax Act and did not do so against accused 3 and 4/respondents 3 and 4. The aggrievement of State/revision petitioner is that no cognizance has been taken against accused 3 and 4/respondents 3 and 4 and no cognizance for offences under the Indian Penal Code has been taken against accused 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor (P) for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
4. The prosecution submission is that purchase bills produced by the accused for their purchase from M/s.S.K.Traders, the concern of accused 3 and 4/respondents 3 and 4 and that obtained by the Department Officers from M/s.Mohan Breeding Farm, Palladam, for the same period reveal that both bills contain the same vehicle number and the same quantity of live chicken whereas the prices quoted in the bills produced are different and undervalued. It is the prosecution case that the broiler chicken was purchased by accused 1 and 2 from M/s.Mohan Breeding Farm, Palladam, for a higher price but the same was shown as purchased from M/s.S.K.Traders, Palladam for a lesser value and thereby payment of VAT was avoided. Court below has refused to take cognizance against accused 3 and 4/partners of M/s.S.K.Traders, Palladam. This Court is of the view that Court below rightly has done so since there is no material whatsoever to indicate that the purchase bills produced by accused 1 and 2 indeed emanated from the partnership firm of accused 3 and 4. In support of its case, the prosecution holds only an unsigned statement informing that the bills had been issued by them, such statement allegedly having been obtained in the course of enquiry u/s.25 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. As against this, the very complaint informs that enquiry with the Commercial Tax Officials at Tamil Nadu had revealed that the firm M/s.S.K.Traders, Palladam, had not reported any sales whatsoever during the relevant period. Thus, when there is no material in support of the case against accused 3 and 4, Partners of M/s.S.K.Traders, Palladam, their being required to face trial would be unjustified. However, when it is the prosecution case that accused 1 and 2 had placed before the VAT authority, undervalued bills as if the same had been issued by M/s.S.K.Traders, Palladam and while in fact purchase had been made from M/s.Mohan Breeding Farm, Palladam, then the question of forgery of said bills and use thereof are genuine is also a matter for consideration.
6. Accordingly, this Court orders as follows:
(i)the decision of the Court below not taking cognizance against accused 3 and 4/respondents 3 and 4 is sustained.
(ii)besides the offences u/s.59(2)(a) and 59(2)(d) of Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, accused 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 shall also be tried for offences u/s.463, 464, 468 and 471 IPC r/w 34 IPC. It is made clear that whatsoever is herein above stated is only towards disposal of this revision and it is always be open to respondents 1 and 2 to submit and establish that all the offences for which they are charged would not be made out against them.
The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the above direction.
11.01.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm C.T.SELVAM, J gm To The Judicial Magistrate, Mahe.
Crl.R.C.No.858 of 2016 11.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in