KUPPUSWAMI AYYAR
The Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
D. Khader Khan – Respondent
There is no other evidence except that of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to show that the accused was liable to pay the tax. Because he did not appeal against the levying of the tax, the prosecution wanted it to be inferred that the tax was leviable and that he was liable to pay the tax. As pointed out in Ramaswami Iyengar v. The Sivakasi Municipality1, in which reference is also made to other cases decided by this Court, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish affirmatively that the accused was liable to pay the tax ard that he failed to pay the same. It is admitted that he failed to pay it, but he disputes his liability to pay it. He says that his turnover was very poor, that he did not have so much sales as it was thought he had and that therefore he was not liable to pay the tax. The prosec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.