Jharkhand HC Upholds Firm Partner’s Tax-Evasion Conviction Over Intentional Goods Discrepancies In Sales-Tax Records

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s firm, M/s Jokhiram Parmeshwar Lal, misreported goods and sale values in statutory Form-F and transaction records to suppress sales and evade commercial tax during 1989–90 and 1990–91.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 49(2)(b) and 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act, among other provisions; the trial court acquitted him of the IPC charges but convicted and sentenced him under the Finance Act.

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the petitioner challenged, among other matters, the sanction, the proof of his individual responsibility as a partner, and the non-examination of the second investigating officer.

Sections 49(2)(b) and 49(3)(d) of the Bihar Finance Act formed the basis of the petitioner’s conviction.

The petitioner also invoked Section 49(5) concerning the sanction required for prosecution; the judgment records that contention but does not separately determine the scope or application of that provision.

Applying the principles stated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and is directed to correcting patent defects, jurisdictional or legal errors, findings based on no evidence, disregard of material evidence, or arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion; it is not to be exercised routinely.

The Court considered the record and accepted the appellate court’s examination of the documentary evidence, which identified discrepancies between the goods recorded and those represented in the relevant forms and transaction records.

It concluded that these discrepancies indicated deliberate conduct by the firm to evade commercial tax.

In light of that evidence and the restricted scope of revision, the Court found no legal substance in the challenge to the concurrent findings.

It did not separately elaborate on the petitioner’s arguments concerning sanction, individual responsibility, or the non-examination of the second investigating officer.

It cancelled the petitioner’s bail and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months to serve the remaining sentence, failing which the trial court was to take coercive steps for his arrest and detention.