AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The 1st petitioner herein is the Managing Director of M/s. Madhu Cotton and Oils Private Limited, Chilakaluripeta and the 2nd petitioner is the Director of the said Company. The said Company is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company fell in arrears of payment of Central Sales Tax assessed for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Even after service of due demand notices, it could not pay the arrears. Hence, a Criminal Complaint was filed against the petitioners before the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripeta, u/s 30(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. The Munsif Magistrate, took cognizance of the same and issued summons to both the petitioners in STC No.107 of 1989. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
Sri Manohar, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends mainly, that as per the mandatory provisions contained u/s 11 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") the offence cannot be taken cognizance of except with the previous sanction of the State Government or the Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. Since there is no such previous sanction in this case, the offence cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripeta.
In order to appreciate the above contention, it is appropriate now to have a look at the said provision, which reads as under:
"Section 11. Cognizance of Offences :-- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or the Rules made thereunder except with the previous sanction of the Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed or of such officer of that Government as it may, by general or specified order, specify in this behalf; and no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any such offence.
(2) All offences punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and bailable."
A close reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that previous sanction of the concerned Government or the Officer authorised by such Government is necessary for taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or the Rules made thereunder.
In this case, the respondents could not produce any such previous sanction either by the Government or by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer, who was authorised by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.2030, Revenue Department, dated 31-10-1958. But the learned Assistant Government Pleader strenuously argued that written sanction is not necessary and, in this case, as could be seen from the counter filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer himself has directed the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Ganapavaram, to launch prosecution against the petitioners and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned action.
The above contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be countenanced and is wholly untenable. In a Country governed by "Rule of Law" there is no place for oral orders. The very concept of oral order is anti-thesis of Rule of Law. In a country like ours, where judicial review prevails, every order of an administrative authority must be in writing.
As already noted, Section 11 of the Act clearly mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act or Rules made thereunder, except with the previous sanction of the concerned Government or the Officer authorised by it. In my considered view, the words "previous sanction" in the context in which they are used, can only mean written sanction. The object of providing for previous sanction is to ensure that in each and every case of default, prosecution is not resorted to by the local officers. The intention appears to be that the concerned Government or the Officer authorised by it in that behalf, has to satisfy itself, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, that the defaulter should be prosecuted. This laudable object will be frustrated if it is to be held that oral sanction is enough, for it will give scope to set up oral sanction at any time. This cannot be permitted. Viewed from any angle, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is unsustainable.
Admittedly, in this case, there is no such previous written sanction either by the State Government or by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. Therefore, the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripeta should not have taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Ganapavaram.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued declaring the complaint petition filed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Office-1st respondent, which was taken cognizance of by the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripeta 2nd respondent as STC No.107 of 1989 on his file, as illegal and void. No costs.