MAHENDRA DURGAPRASAD DADKAR Vs. C T O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has issued five cheques for a sum of Rs. 99,022. 97 beside Rs. 10,000/- being compound fee. The petitioner carried on business in job work of rubberising spindles. The second respondent inspected the premises of the petitioner on 28. 5. 1991 and it was found that there is a liability of tax under Entry Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act as well as K. S. T. Act. Statement of petitioner was recorded wherein the liability was admitted and taxes were paid under protest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that unless there being a determination of liability of tax the provisions of Section 31 of the K. S. T. Act, or Section 23 of karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, could not be invoked.

(2.) ARGUMENTS of the Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. Section 31 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is as under:

(3.) THE other situation which has been contemplated by Section 31 (aa) is where the offence is committed under Section 27 (2) in respect of non issue of bills of cash memorandum. The offence is committed in that case when the bill is not issued or obtained. Since the offence has already been committed and the respondent found clinching and sufficient evidence for prosecuting the assessee in respect of the offence, action could be taken under Section 31 of the Act. In Section 31 the words "where the offence is reasonably suspected to have been committed" have to be read over only in respect of offence under Section 31 (aa ).