RAMNIWAS KABULPURIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under S.25(1) (g) of the Orissa ST Act, 1947 and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for five months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that the petitioner is the proprietor of a firm at Malgodown Cuttack which was registered under s.9 of the Orissa ST Act, 1947 as well as the rules thereunder. He submitted his returns along with list of registered dealers and declarations during the years 1971 -72, 1972 -73 and 1973 -74 claiming deductions from the sales tax payable on account of various sales tax payable on account of various sales under s.5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act. Assessment was completed on 26th Sept., 1974. During enquiries made by the STO, it was detected that the information furnished and the return submitted by the petitioner for those years were false and he had claimed deductions from sales tax by showing the fictitious names of different firms, said to have purchased several goods and thereby avoided to pay a sizable sum as sales tax to Government. The defence plea is one of complete denial and it is further pleaded that the information list of registered dealers and declarations furnished by the petitioner were true and the firms named therein are not fictitious, as alleged and has committed no offence.

(3.) THE learned Additional Standing Counsel entertained that such a contention cannot be entertained as the same has not been raised anywhere in the Courts below. In my view, this is a point of law which basically affects the case. If the case is barred by limitation, the conviction cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, necessary that this question should be decided. The learned Courts below have not considered this aspect which has a material bearing on the case. For coming to the conclusion on this point, certain factual aspects are to be taken into consideration by the Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is necessary that the case should be remanded to the trial Court for considering the aforesaid aspect. The trial Court will not allow the parties to lead any fresh evidence.