PURAN DEVI Vs. KLAR Z S ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners (except Nos. 9, 10 and 11) who concededly were partners of a firm known as M/s Guru Nanak Construction Co., Malerkotla, have been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, vide his order dt. 17th July, 1984, to face trial under S. 276C of the IT Act, 1961. This order has been passed in pursuance of a complaint by the ITO, Central Circle, Patiala, on the ground that they have wilfully attempted to evade payment of tax by filing false and incorrect return for the asst. year 1975 - 76. The petitioners claim for the quashing of this complaint and the resultant summoning order in view of the fact that there are no allegations in the complaint which fix them with any criminality as envisaged by S. 278B of the Act.

(2.) IT is the undisputed position that prosecutions under the various provisions of the Act are regulated by the provisions of S. 278B of the Act which, inter alia, lay down that when an offence under the Act has been committed by a firm, then only the person or the partner of the same, who at the time of the commission of the offence was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business will, besides the firm, be liable for the offence committed. In the face of this admitted legal position, all that needs to be done is to screen the contents of the impugned complaint to find out if it has been alleged anywhere that the petitioners or any one of them were/was in charge of the affairs of the firm and were/was responsible to it for the conduct of its business. Having perused the same, I find that no allegations worth the name have been made except against petitioner No. 2 i.e., Smt. Santosh Ahluwalia and one J. M. Singh, a non -petitioner, to show the commission of any offence by them. All that has been asserted in this complaint is that the initial return on behalf of the above noted firm for the assessment year had been signed by Sh. J. M. Singh, the non - petitioner, and the revised return for the same year had been filed by Smt. Santosh Ahluwalia, i.e., petitioner No. 2. It has nowhere been alleged that any of the petitioners or the accused except Smt. Santosh Ahluwalia and J. M. Singh, non -petitioner, was in any way running the affairs of the firm or was responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. In the light of this factual position, it is patent that no complaint could either be filed against the accused other than the firm, Smt. Santosh Ahluwalia, petitioner No. 2, and J. M. Singh, non -petitioner, nor can the proceedings be continued against them. Therefore, the impugned complaint and the resultant proceedings which are now pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, against the accused except the firm, petitioner No. 2, Smt. Santosh Ahluwalia, and J. M. Singh, non -petitioner, are quashed.