JAGANNATH PRASAD versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 03-05-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1S5Z 
May 3. 
850 
SU.PRE~IE COURT REPORTS [11!63] 
JAGANNATH PRASAD 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
l<AORUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
"--. 
.. 
Salt8 Tax-U•inu forget!, clocumenl• before Sa/ea Tax 
01/iur-l'roaecution-Jf complaint of sale• Tax Officer >1eces· 
aary-SIJ/ea 1'az Offiur, whelher a Court-Liability to pay tax-
·...,--
Notification 1'"-•crihing aingk point for tcu:.ition inel/ective-
El/ect of Utta1 PradMh Salu Tax Ar,t, 19'8 (U. P. 15 of 1948), 
aa. 3, · 3A, U(d)-Cixk of Criminal Piocedure 1898 (Act V of 
1898), •. 195. 
The appellanlS who carry on the business in vrgctable 
ghee purchased vegetable ghee from ouiside U. P. in the 
name of four fictitious firms. 
In their return of sales tax they 
did not include the sale proceeds of the'iC transactions on 
the ground that they had purchased from the four firms and 
that under a notification made under s. 3A of the U. P. 
Sales Tax Act, tax was leviable only at a single-point on the 
sale by the outside suppliers to the"' four firms. 
In support 
of this the appellant No. 1 made a fal<e statement before 
the Sales fax Officer and also 
filed forged bills 
before 
him. The return was accepted by the SalC'i Tax Officer with 
the result that the sales covered by these transactions were not 
taxed. The appellants were tried and convicted for offence 
under •· 471 Indian Penal Code for using forged decuments 
and under s. 14(dJ of the Act for fraudulently evading pay-
ment of tax due under the Act The appellants contended that 
the trial for the offence under s. 471 wa• illegal as no comp-
laint had been made by the Sales l"ax Officer as required by 
s. I !15 Code of Criminal Procedure and that the offence under 
s. 14 (d) of the Act was not made out as no tax was payable 
under s. 3A became the notification issued thereunder was 
invalid. 
Held, that the Sales Tax Officer wa1 not a Court Nithin 
the meaning of s. 195 Code of Criminal Procedure and It waa 
not neces.ary for him to make a complaint for the prosecution 
of the Appellants under s. 471 Indian Penal Code. A Sales 
Tu Officer was merely an 
instrumentality oi the State 
for purposeo of assessment and collection of tax and even if he 
was required to perform certain quasi-judicial functions he 
was not a part of the judiciary. The nature of the functions, 
of a Sales Tax Officer and the manner prescribed for their 
. 
• 
... 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
851 
performance showed that he could not be . equated with a 
Court. Nor could he be said to be a Revenue Court. Though 
the definition of Court in s, 195. of the Code was enlarged by 
the substitution of the word «include" for the word "means" 
by the amendment of 1923, it did not change the definition of 
''Revenue Court.'' 
Smt. Ujjam Bai v. The St<itt, of U. P. (1963) 1 S.C.R. 778), 
Shell Oo. of Australia Ltrl. v. Ferleral Oommissioner of Taxation 
[1931] A, C. 275 and Brajnanrlan Sinha 
v. Jyoti Narain 
[1955] 2 S.C.R. 955, applied. 
~ 
Krishna v. Gocerrlhanaiah, A. I. R. 1954 Mad. 822, 
' 
I 
approved. 
In re: Punamchand Manelclttl, (19.14) I. L, R. 38 Born. 
642 and Stale v. Nemchanrl Pashvir Patel, (1956) 7 S. T. C. 
404 not approved. 
In re: R. Nataraja Iyer (1914) I. L. R. 36 Mad. 72 
and Shri Virende•· Kumar l'Jatyawa<li v. The Sate of Punjab, 
(1955] 2 S. c. R. 1013 referred to. 
· 
Helrl, further th.at the appe \Ian ts were rightly convicted 
under s. 14 (d) of the Act. Sales tax was payable under s.3 
of the Act in respect of all sales. But under s.3A it was 
leviable only at a single point if the Government issued a 
notification 
declaring the point at which tax. was payable 
and it was so prescribed by the rules. Under the notification 
issued by the Government tax was payable only by the 
dealer who imported the goods and sold them. 
The appel-
lants having imported the ghee were liable to pay the tax on 
the sales of this ghee which 'they fraudulently evaded. 
Though the notification was ineffective as no rules were made 
under the Act prescribing the ;ingle point, it did not help the 
appellants, as the only effect of this was that s. 3A did not 
come into play. In ttying to get the benefit of the ineffective 
notification under s. 3-A the appellants evaded payment of 
tax under s. 3 which they were liable to pay. 
CRIMINAL .Al>PELLATE JumsDIOTION: Criminal 
.Appeal No. 152/59; 
' 
~ 
Appeal by special leave from the judgillent 
and Order dated May 12, 1959 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Criminal Re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.