The petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/S. Sentu Dey, a Tripura State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017-registered business. The Superintendent of State Taxes, Bishalgarh, filed a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on November 27, 2020, alleging that the petitioner had under-declared his outward taxable turnover and paid less tax than he was liable to pay for the period beginning in August 2017 and ending in November 2020.
It is further said that the applicant has been assessed a substantial interest of Rs.19.74 crores, inclusive of tax, interest, and penalty, of which only Rs.1.18 crores could be recovered. The remaining amount of Rs.18.55 crores is unaccounted for. Notices were sent to the petitioner's purchasing dealers, who informed the department that they had previously paid their taxes to the petitioner for the petitioner's purchases.
The complainant later confirmed that the petitioner had collected the fees from the purchasing vendors and had not kept anything equivalent in the government's revenue. The petitioner was arrested and charged with the offense. The complaint would be registered as a CR Case and sent to the JMFC Court in Bishalgarh, according to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bishalgarh. After filing the objection as a FIR and requesting a report, the learned Magistrate submitted the case for examination.
Mr. Sankar Lodh, the petitioner's experienced counsel, stated that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the matter when it was presented to him. It was no longer possible for him to request an investigation. Because the complainant had not recently approached the police by filing a complaint, the Magistrate could not have just submitted the protest for examination. The petitioner is accused of an offense punishable under Section 132 of the SGST Act, which is a one-of-a-kind resolution, according to the attorney. In such a circumstance, IPC's overall arrangements are impossible to envision.
Mr. Ratan Datta objected to the petition, claiming that the petitioner had committed cognizable crimes. The Magistrate has the authority to order a police investigation. He hadn't looked into the offenses beforehand. This appeal, he argued, isn't viable. If the case of HDFC Securities Restricted vs. Province of Maharashtra came up, he was reliant on the Supreme Court's decision.
Even if a revision petition against the Magistrate's decision is not viable, the counsel noted that this would not prohibit the High Court from evaluating the order's constitutionality under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
While making its decision, the court considered what constitutes the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offense under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. The court went on to list several instances that dealt with this issue, as well as numerous facts relevant to it. The court looked into the reasoning behind the conflicting order. It claimed that after hearing the learned P.P. and reviewing the complaint, the learned Magistrate believed that the case should be probed by the police before taking cognizance. The learned magistrate failed to notice that the stage of taking cognizance had already been reached on November 27, 2020. As a result, the order granting the petition was dismissed, but the Magistrate was ordered to follow the law from the moment the offenses were uncovered.