PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K RAMACHANDRA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are filed by the State of Madras against the acquittal of the same accused person in C. T. Nos. 128 and 129 of 1963 on the file of the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. On 1. 6. 1963 the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (Detection) South Madras on inspection of the place of business of the accused recovered certain rough account slips and bills. From a perusal of these documents, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer came to the conclusion that for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 respectively the dealer had made suppressions of turnover to the extent of Rs. 1,30,857 and Rs. 1,81,018 respectively. It was alleged that in the returns of turnover prescribed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the above amounts were not included, that the omission was wilful and that as a result the dealer is liable to prosecution under Section 45 (2) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Two charge sheets were filed for the failure to submit correct returns for 1956-57 and 1957-58 respectively.

(2.) SECTION 45 (2) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959 reads thus: Any person who wilfully submits an untrue return, or, not being already an assessee under this Act, to submit a return as required by the provisions of this Act, or the rule made thereunder, shall on conviction. . . be liable to a fine. . . .

(3.) BEFORE the prosecution the Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the accused proposing to levy a compounding fee in lieu of prosecution and for this notice the dealer replied that the amount reported as suppression had been really included in the monthly returns submitted by him and therefore the prosecution might be dropped. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the dealer did not produce any account of documentary evidence to support his contention and thus had failed to prove the correctness of the monthly returns submitted by him for the concerned years.