C RAMAKRISHNA Vs. VISWANADHAM SURYA PRAKASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the accused in C.C. No. 146 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 146 of 1992.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are in brief as follows : The first petitioner is a Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada 2. The second petitioner is Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office. M/s. Associated Automotives Sales Private Ltd., Vijayawada, are assessees on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada. The said business premises was inspected on 27/12/1991. While the inspection was in progress the second petitioner went to the business premises of the dealer and was there for some time. During the course of inspection certain material was discovered and on the basis of the said material the first petitioner made provisional assessment for the year 1991-92 through his proceedings dated 21/03/1992, enhancing the taxable turnover by Rs. 15,75,675. The tax effect on the enhanced turnover is Rs. 1,66,885. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Guntur, through his proceedings dated 15/05/1992, rejected the petition of the dealer for stay of collection of the enhanced tax. The final assessment show cause notice for the year 1990-91 has also been issued enhancing the taxable turnover by Rs. 21,65,620. At the time of inspection the petitioners were accompanied by three Commercial Tax Officers and four Assistant Commercial Tax Officers and other staff members. As the tax was enhanced the Managing Director of Associated Automotives Sales Private Ltd., Vijayawada, got a complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners for offences under sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners contend that the allegations in the complaint are absolutely false and the complaint is filed to demoralise them and with a view to coerce them so that the turnover is brought down. Under section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the officers not below the rank of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers having jurisdiction over an area have the authority to inspect the books of account and goods of the dealer and for this purpose they can inspect the offices, shops and godowns. Sub-section (1) of section 37 of the said Act bars prosecution against any officer for any act done or purporting to be done under the said Act without prior sanction of the Government. Sub-section (2) of section 37 of the Act further states that no officer of the State Government shall be liable in respect of any such act in any civil and criminal proceedings if the Act was done in good faith in the course of execution of duties imposed on him or the discharge of functions entrusted to him under the said Act. As the petitioners are admittedly employees in Commercial Tax Department and as the complaint is filed without sanction either under section 37 of the Act or under section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure they contend that the complaint is not tenable and should be quashed.

(3.) The point that arises for consideration is whether the sanction as envisaged under section 37 of the Act is necessary in this case.