SURINDER SINGH KOHLI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has approached this court for quashing of the proceeding in GR No. 899 of 2013 arising out of Hare Street P.S. Case No. 154 of 2013 dated 6/3/2013 under section 93(4)(c)/93(6)/93(7) of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with section 120B/403/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the instant application are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Referring to the petition of complaint dated 6/3/2013 and the letter dated 19/2/2013 addressed to MBL Infrastructure Ltd., it is pointed out that the tax alleged to have been evaded as mentioned in the FIR is Rs. 2,79,02,375/- whereas in the letter dated 19/2/2013 the figure of evaded unpaid tax is Rs. 2,35,92,215/-. It is further canvassed that the order dated 7/3/2013 of the Taxation Tribunal was not complied by making a formal assessment order for the relevant period quantifying the dues payable by the Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that without the demand being quantified by way of making assessment as per law there is no liability to pay the tax. In the written notes of argument on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the petitioner was appointed as an independent director of the Company on 25/6/2010 and he resigned on 1/6/2013. Further contention is that as an independent director under the Companies Act the petitioner was in no way responsible for the conduct of business and the day to day affairs of the Company. He was inducted in the Company for his expertise in the field of finance. It is further averred that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner who has been arrayed as an accused only due to his designation and not by reason of his involvement in the business transaction of the Company.