TMI Blog1959 (12) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 1,209-75 nP. at once and to produce the treasury challan on 7th August, 1958. The notice further stated as follows: "You are hereby informed that in failing to enclose the treasury receipt for the tax due, you have committed an offence punishable under section 30(3)(b) read with rule 17(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Rules and you are liable for prosecution under section 30(1)(a) of the Act. Before launching prosecution against you for the said offence, I wish to give you an offer of composition of the offence in a sum of Rs. 200 under section 32 of the Act in addition to the penalty leviable under section 16(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and you are hereby required to state within 3 days of receipt of this notice whether or not you are willing to have the offence compounded. If no reply is received within the time allowed or if you are not willing to have the offence compounded, please take notice that a prosecution will be filed against you before the Judicial First Class Magistrate without further notice." It is this notice and the proceedings contemplated therein which are sought to be interdicted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent to the first three months aforesaid. (4) If the tax assessed or the penalty levied under this Act or any instalment thereof, and the fees payable towards licence or registration, are not paid by a dealer within the time specified therefor, the whole of the amount then remaining unpaid may be recovered from him as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (5) The penalty levied under this Act shall be without prejudice to the institution of any proceeding for an offence under this Act, or for the recovery of the entire amount remaining unpaid under sub-section (4)." Section 30 is in these terms: "30. (1) Any person who(a) fails to pay within the time allowed, any tax assessed on him or any penalty levied, or any fee due from him, under this Act; or (b) being a person obliged to register himself as a dealer under this Act, does not get himself so registered; or (c) wilfully acts in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall, on conviction, be liable to be punished with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. (2) Any person who- (a) prevents or obstructs inspection, entry, search or seizure by an officer authorised under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture involved in the investigation of the loss resulting from the fraud of the licensees. Both the sanctions are imposed to ensure compliance with the statutory rules and conditions and to discourage fraudulent attempts at evasion of taxes and duties by making it unremunerative. They are independent remedies and both of them can be availed. In respect of the same Act, there can be both a criminal, civil or fiscal sanction. The subsistence of a penal provision does not stand in the way of a parallel provision for the levy of a penalty. This seems to be the general feature of fiscal enactments. The two sets of remedies are essential to work out the Act and they are not mutually exclusive. The department is not put to option to choose either of the two alternatives. The two sets of proceedings may be started simultaneously. In our opinion, there is no principle known to law which renders existence of such concurrent sanctions obnoxious." Following the principle enunciated in the above passage, I hold that the penalty and the prosecution are not mutually exclusive. In the view I have taken that the imposition of penalty and the launching of the prosecution are not mutually exclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is argued that there is no guiding test or principle to determine when a case would fall under section 30(1) or section 30(3). This, it is argued, violates the equality before the law and also the equal protection of law. This argument appears to me to be wholly unsustainable. In the Madras General Sales Tax Act which was replaced by the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, section 15 was in these terms: "15. Any person who- (a) wilfully submits an untrue return or fails to submit a return as required by the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder, or (b) fails to pay within the time allowed, any tax assessed on him, or any penalty levied or any fee due from him, under this Act, or (c) prevents or obstructs inspection or entry by any officer authorised under section 14, in contravention of the terms thereof, or (d) fraudulently evades the payment of any tax assessed on him, or any fee due from him, under this Act, or (e) fails to submit an application for registration as required by section 8-A, or (f) wilfully acts in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, shall, on conviction by a Magistrate of the 1st class be liable to be punishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which bears a rational relation to the main intendment and purpose of the Act, which in addition to the levy of assessment, are designed to see that the tax is realised quickly and with expedition and persistent default and evasion are discouraged by the imposition of a more severe punishment. The last argument of the learned counsel that the levying of penalty and a possible prosecution is violative of the doctrine of double jeopardy enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution is wholly untenable. Article 20(2) of the Constitution states: "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once." Levy of penalty is not a prosecution and Article 20(2) can, therefore, have no application at all. In Venkataraman v. The Union of India(1954) S.C.J. 461., it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to enable a citizen to invoke the protection of clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution, there must have been prosecution and punishment in respect of the same offence. The words "prosecuted and punished" are to be taken not distributively so as to mean prosecuted or punished. Both the factors must co-exist in order that the operation of the clause may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
