Honble YAMIN, J.–This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred by an advocate who practices on Commercial Taxes side at Sriganganagar. M/s Tuli Industries is his client. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tuli filed a return on behalf of firm for the year 1993-94 on 14.6.1996 showing no sale in the concerned year. An affidavit was filed to this effect. For the year 1994-95 false statements were submitted and when inquired the taxable sale for the year 1994-95 was Rs. 2,81,641/-. The matter was inquired by the Commercial Taxes Department and it revealed that the sale for the financial year was Rs. 12,963/-on which the firm was liable for tax. (2). A complaint was filed by Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion) Shri Panna Lal Meghwal against M/s. Tuli Industries through its partner Ajay Kumar Tuli in which petitioner Chandresh Singhvi advocate was arrayed as an accused. The allegation against him is that he aided and abetted the offence under Section 71(b), (c) and (i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a legal adviser of the firm and he cannot be held liable for any offence committed by the firm. He submitted that the petition was a counter blast of the proceedings against Panna Lal which were initiated on the basis of complaints filed against him by the petitioner. He submitted that para No. 7 of the complaint itself speaks of prejudice of the complainant against the petitioner. (5). On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that the order taking cognizance should not be quashed as it is in very exceptional cases that such an order can be quashed. (6). It will be necessary to quote the relevant provisions of Section 71 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act which is relevant for disposing of this petition. Section 71 of the said Act provides that (1) where any person– ``(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 71 of the said Act provides that (1) where any person– ``(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) knowingly prepares or produces false accounts, registers or docu-ments, or knowingly furnishes false returns in relation to his business, or makes a false disclosure or averment in any statement required to be recorded or in any declaration required to be filled under this Act or the rules; or (c) fraudulently avoids or evades tax or deliberately conceals his tax liability in any manner; or (d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i) aids or abets any person in the commission of any such offence as aforesaid; on a complaint being made against such person by the assessing authority or any other competent officer after having obtained sanc-tion from the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) having jurisdiction, he shall, on conviction by a judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction, be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine not exceeding Rupees five thousand, and for the offences covered under clauses (b), (c), (f) or (g), with a minimum sentence of simple imprisonment of three months. (7). The question is whether the advise of a counsel will amount to aiding or abetting the offence under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ? There is no specific allegation against the petitioner as to in what way he abetted or aided the offences committed by M/s. Tuli Industries. The petitioner is an advocate and advises his client and if an offence is committed by M/s. Tuli Industries, his counsel cannot be held responsible. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner as to in what way he abetted or aided the offences committed by M/s. Tuli Industries. The petitioner is an advocate and advises his client and if an offence is committed by M/s. Tuli Industries, his counsel cannot be held responsible. Preparation of an affidavit and presenting it before Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, would not mean that it was the petitioner who aided or abetted the offence within the meaning of Section 71 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Filing of complaint against the petitioner appears to be a counter blast of the complaints made against Panna Lal Meghwal, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion). The work of the counsel in discharge of his duties as a legal adviser in this case cannot be said to be an aid or abetment of the offences committed by M/s. Tuli Industries. Therefore, the order taking cognizance against petitioner Chandresh Singhvi is hereby quashed. (8). The petition stands allowed.