Asha Arora, J. - (1.) By the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has approached this court for quashing of the proceeding in GR No. 899 of 2013 arising out of Hare Street P.S. Case No. 154 of 2013 dated 6/3/2013 under section 93(4)(c)/93(6)/93(7) of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with section 120B/403/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta.
(2.) The facts in brief leading to the instant application are as follows: On 6/3/2013 the complainant/opposite party no. 2 herein lodged a written complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Enforcement Branch Kolkata alleging commission of offences under section 93(4)(c), 93(6) and 93(7) of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code by the Company named M/S MBL Infrastructure Ltd. and its directors namely, Surinder Singh Kohli who is the petitioner herein, Maruti Maheswari and Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia the two other directors and Nitin Bagaria the Secretary who were in charge of and responsible to the said company for the conduct of its business during the relevant period of tax evasion. It is alleged that there was suppression of contractual transfer price worth Rs. 47.13 crore by the company thereby evading tax payable to the tune of Rs. 2,79,02,375/- under the WBVAT Act during the period 2007- 2008 to 2011-2012. M/S MBL Infrastructure had executed works contract during the aforementioned period for Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Public Works (Roads) Department, Government of West Bengal but did not show the same in the returns filed under the Act. Business activities were carried out clandestinely by the dealer without maintaining proper books of accounts. On the basis of the said written complaint the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and three others hereinabove named as the directors and Secretary of the said Company. Investigation into the case culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under section 93(4)(c)/93(6)/93(7) of WBVAT Act read with section 120B/403/420/467/468/471 IPC against the four accused persons hereinabove named including the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Referring to the petition of complaint dated 6/3/2013 and the letter dated 19/2/2013 addressed to MBL Infrastructure Ltd., it is pointed out that the tax alleged to have been evaded as mentioned in the FIR is Rs. 2,79,02,375/- whereas in the letter dated 19/2/2013 the figure of evaded unpaid tax is Rs. 2,35,92,215/-. It is further canvassed that the order dated 7/3/2013 of the Taxation Tribunal was not complied by making a formal assessment order for the relevant period quantifying the dues payable by the Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that without the demand being quantified by way of making assessment as per law there is no liability to pay the tax. In the written notes of argument on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the petitioner was appointed as an independent director of the Company on 25/6/2010 and he resigned on 1/6/2013. Further contention is that as an independent director under the Companies Act the petitioner was in no way responsible for the conduct of business and the day to day affairs of the Company. He was inducted in the Company for his expertise in the field of finance. It is further averred that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner who has been arrayed as an accused only due to his designation and not by reason of his involvement in the business transaction of the Company.;