TMI Blog1954 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49, but was not made till 13th October, 1951. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 330. In appeal, relying on my judgment in Public Prosecutor v. Kuncham Venkateswarulu(1), the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused. The case in the above deci- sion is for an offence under section 13 read with section 15(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the punishment for which will be under section 15(h). As every person whose turnover is more than Rs. 7,500 must get himself registered and as every dealer whose turnover is Rs. 10,000 or more should submit his return, for an offence under section 13 of the Act, I have no doubt held that he must be a registered dealer. I was in that case dealing only with the ques- tion whether the accused can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above case regarding section 9 have been applied to this case, but as already stated, the consideration of section 9 seems to be quite obiter in that case which was only with reference to an offence under section 13 read with section 15(h). Section 15 also clearly says that any person who fails to submit a return as requir- ed by the provisions of the Act shall on conviction be liable to a fine. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
