SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(Mad) 250

(1953) 1 MLJ 157 (Mad)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Present : Mr. Justice Ramaswami.
Case Number(s) : Cr.R.C. Nos. 88 to 111 of 1952. (Cr.R.P. Nos. 79 to 102 of 1952).
Judgement Date : Tuesday 09th of September 1952
The Public Prosecutor .....Appellant(s)
Versus
K.C. Ayyappan Pillai and others .....Respondent(s)

Advocates:
The Public Prosecutor (V.T. Rangaswami Ayangar) in person.
G. Vasanta Pai, T. Krishna Rao and Ramaprasada Rao for John and Row for Respondents.

Court has power to direct in the judgment for recovery of tax amount as fine.

Headnote:Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939-Section 15(b) -Passing of Sentence after amendment through offence committed prior to amendment.

Order:

Crl. R.C.Nos.88 to 97, 99 to 105 and 108 of 1952.- These are 18 connected criminal revision cases filed by the State against: the convictions and sentences of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fort, Cochin, in C.C. No. 122 of 1951, etc.

The following tabular statement gives the details of these Sales-tax cases from which these revisions are preferred:-

Serial number Crl. R.C. number C.C. number Tax Year of assessment Conviction and sentence

10. 97/52 68/51 Rs. A. P.

896 7 9 1947-48 Rs. 100 fine.

11. 99/52 162/51 346 2 4 1945-46 Rs. 50 fine on admission.

12. 100/52 157/51 1,746 6 0

1,219 14 6

526 7 6 1947-48 Rs. 140, fine balance of tax Rs. 526-7-6 to be paid.

13. 101/52 156/51 1,273 1 8 1946-47 Rs. 130 fine.

14. 102/52 155/51 582 4 0 1945-46 Rs. 60 fine on admission.

15. 103/52 153/51 953 0 0

628 0 0

325 0 0 1947-48 Rs. 70 fine. Balance of tax Rs. 325-0-0 to be paid.

16. 104/52 152/51 1,232 0 8 1946-47 Rs. 120 fine on admission.

17. 105/52 151/51 764 7 4 1945-46 Rs. 80 fine on admission.

18. 108/52 127/51 5,653 2 6 " Rs. 600 fine on admission.

There is no dispute in all these 18 cases about the correct calculation of the turnover adopted by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or the assessment or the service of the demand notices or the non-payment of the taxes within the time fixed. The learned Public Prosecutor has preferred these criminal revision cases on the ground that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in 14 of these cases has not provided in the order for the payment of the sales tax in respect of which the particular respondent was found guilty and convicted under section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and that in three cases he has made the respondent liable to pay the tax only for the second half of 1947-48 in C.C. No. 72 of 1951 and for the last three months of 1947-48 in C.C. No. 153 of 1951 and for the last three months of 1947-48 in C.C. No. 157 of 1951 and that this direction for payment of the tax for the last quarter only is not in conformity with law and that the lower Court ought to have directed in the order the payment of the entire tax in respect of which default was committed and for which the respective respondent was found guilty and sentenced under section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

There can be no doubt that under section 10 of the said Act the tax assessed has got to be paid in such manner and in such instalments, if any, and within such time as may be specified in the notice of assessment and that if there is failure to pay within the time allowed any tax assessed on the assessee under the Act and he is prosecuted for an offence under section 15, that assessee on conviction is liable to pay a fine and in case of a conviction under clause (b) of section 15 the Magistrate shall specify in the order the tax which the person convicted has failed to pay and the tax so specified shall be recoverable as if it were a fine. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor that in all these cases the defaulted tax should be specified in the order of the Magistrate and made recoverable as if it were a fine and that the Magistrate cannot split up this tax and give relief in regard to a portion of the year, are correct.

The learned advocates for respondents contend that the Magistrate was justified in the course which he has adopted, because under the law as it stood when these offences were committed the present provision that in cases of convictions under section 15(b) the Magistrate having to specify in the order the tax which the person convicted has failed to pay and the tax so specified being made recoverable as if it were a fine did not exist, and that to pass such an order would offend Articles 20 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

I have carefully considered the appplication of both these Articles and find that there is no substance in this contention.

So far as Article 20 is concerned which prohibits retro-active criminal laws or ex post facto laws, the scop








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top