TMI Blog1958 (2) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliminary objections, viz., [1958] 9 S.T.C. 215.that it is not alleged, in conformity with clause (c) of section 15 as it stands at present, that the accused had fraudulently evaded the payment of the tax or the compounding fee; (2) that there is already a compounding order under section 16 of the Act and that this bars a prosecution for the same offence; (3) that rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules should be held to be not validly brought into force following a recent Full Bench decision of the Andhra High Court reported in notes of recent cases as (1957) 2 Andhra Law Journal (Batchu Sreeramulu Chetty v. State of Andhra Pradesh(1)); and (4) that section 15 of the Act in its present form is not a mere ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... analytical discussion on wilful submission of an untrue return at page 216 and foll. of N.R. Raghavachariar, "Sales Tax in Madras" (Law Weekly Publication); and also page 163 of V. Sundara Vyas, "The Madras General Sales Tax Companion"; and Sethuraman, "The Law of Sales Tax in India", pages 94-95, "wilful submission of untrue return". 5.. The second contention that the levy of a compounding fee is a bar to the filing of a case would have some substance if the offer to compound the offence has been accepted by the party and the transaction has been completed by him by payment of the stipulated amount. It is not so in this case. The prosecutions themselves have been launched on account of the failure of the assessees to pay the compounding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tution of the new section 15 in the place of the old one. The argument is that old section 15 has been repealed, the new section 15 is not retrospective and therefore there can be no valid prosecution. But this point is concluded by authority. In a recent decision of the Kerala High Court, State v. Krishnan[1957] 8 S.T.C. 738; (1957) M.L.J. Crl. 795., the learned Judges did not agree with a similar contention that the repeal of old section 15 and the substitution thereof by a new section is to be retrospective. They observed that there is nothing in the Amending Act XV of 1956 or in the new section 15 that manifests an intention incompatible with the previous operation of the old section. Therefore, the learned Magistrate did not rightly up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
