1994 (3) TMI 365 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Whether an offence under section 46(1)(d) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 is a continuing offence for the purpose of section 472, Cr. P.C. and if the bar of section 468, Cr. P.C would not apply to the prosecutions launched against the non-applicant.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Continuing Offence under Section 46(1)(d) of the Act
The case involved complaints against the non-applicant for offences under section 46(1)(d) of the Act related to non-payment of taxes within the specified time. The State contended that these were continuing offences and not barred by limitation. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi defined a continuing offence as one that arises from a failure to comply with a rule, with the liability continuing until compliance. The court examined previous cases to determine if the offences in question were continuing, emphasizing the need for a case-by-case analysis.

Issue 2: Precedents on Continuing Offences
The court referred to the case of Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P. where non-payment of provident fund contributions was deemed a continuing offence. Another case cited was Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Balu Jeevappa Upparatti, where trespass was considered a continuing offence. However, the court highlighted that each case must be assessed individually to determine if the offence is indeed continuing.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 46(1)(d) of the Act
Section 46(1)(d) of the Act specifies penalties for non-payment of taxes within the allowed time, with provisions for imprisonment and fines. The court analyzed the language of the section to determine if the failure to pay tax within the time allowed constituted a one-time offence or a continuing one. It concluded that the failure to pay tax within the specified time is a one-time offence and not a continuing offence, as the duty is not performed once the time elapses.

Conclusion
The court upheld the view that the offences under section 46(1)(d) of the Act were not continuing offences and were subject to the bar under section 468, Cr. P.C. The duty to pay tax within the time allowed does not constitute a continuing offence, and recovery mechanisms other than prosecution are available to enforce tax payment obligations. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision applications, confirming the decision of the learned Magistrate.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the distinction between continuing and one-time offences, emphasizing the need for a case-specific analysis to determine the nature of the offence. The court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions led to the dismissal of the revision applications, establishing that the offences in question were not continuing and were subject to the limitation period under section 468, Cr. P.C.