PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. P. RAMASWAMY NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent, of an offence Under Section 15 (2) (a) and (d) of the Madras General Sales -tax Act 1939 read with Section 45(2) (a) of the Act for non -maintenance of true and complete accounts and wilful submission of untrue returns during the year 1955 -56, by the fourth Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras.

(2.) THE respondent is a dealer in coffee works at No. 8r C. A. Road, Washermenpet, and was an assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Washermenpet. He reported a gross and net turnover of Rs. 3,85,693 -9 -0 for the year 1955 -56, while the actual income was Rs 3,87,344 -12 -9. The respondent was also charged that during the year 1955 -56 he suppressed the transactions amounting to Rs. 3,02,399 -14 -0 with one B. Anantaswami, proprietor Boothalinga Agencies, Kilpauk. The taxing authorities assessed the respondent for a total turnover of Rs. 6,89, 745. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer, North Madras, but the appeal was dismissed on 26 -10 -1957. Then the respondent filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 12 -9 -1959. A revision to this Court was also dismissed on 10 -2 -1959. A petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court also met with the same fate. The sales tax authorities issued a notice to the respondent asking him whether he was willing to compound the offence of submitting a false return by paying a sum of Rs. 1000. The respondent was not agreeable and therefore this prosecution was instituted.

(3.) IT was contended by the Public Prosecutor, relying on a decision in Public Prosecutor v. Ramalingam, ILR : AIR1958Mad544 that in the trial it would not be open to the respondent to question the genuineness of Exs. D. 9 and D. 10 and that plea was in fact raised by the respondent before the authorities set up under the General Sales Tax Act and negatived. Mr. V. Rajagopalachari, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Full Bench decision is authority only for the proposition that the validity of the assessment of the tax made under the Act could not be questioned in a criminal Court in any prosecution but that it would not bar the respondent from proving that he did not wilfully submit an untrue return by questioning the genuineness of the two documents on which the authorities under the Sales Tax Act relied.