9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (2) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70) instituted as per orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a registered dealer under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The four cases are for not paying taxes as per four assessment orders for different periods ranging from 1st November, 1959, to 8th November, 1961. In Case No. 83/67 as per assessment order dated 24th November, 1964, the respondent was assessed to tax of Rs. 3,193.26 for the period 21st October, 1960, to 8th November, 1961. In Case No. 84/67 as per assessment order dated 2nd September, 1964, the respondent was assessed to tax of Rs. 836.25 for the period 1st November, 1959, to 20th October, 1960. In Case No. 85/67 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of his principals and he could not be assessed for those transactions and the respondent was given instalments to clear off his dues. The respondent did not give any evidence in his defence. The learned trial Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence on record, negatived the contentions of the respondent regarding the validity of the assessment orders holding that the said orders could not be challenged in these prosecutions and should have been challenged before the appropriate forums constituted under the Act and the respondent has also not given any evidence to show how the assessments were invalid. However, the trial Magistrate gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent saying that it could not be said that non-payment of taxes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in sections 38 and 39, no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any such assessment or order. It is now well-settled that if a statute imposes a liability and creates an effective machinery for deciding the question of law or fact arising in regard to that liability, it may, by necessary implication, bar the maintainability of a civil suit in respect of the said liability. A statute may also confer exclusive jurisdiction on the authorities constituting the said machinery to decide finally a jurisdictional fact thereby excluding by necessary implication the jurisdiction of a civil court in that regard. But an authority created by a statute cannot question the vires of that statute or any of the provisions thereof whereunde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pleas, objections and contentions which those authorities are precluded from entertaining." Following this decision, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor v. Thimmaiah[1959] 10 S.T.C. 85; A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 207 (F.B.) has further held that the purpose of section 15(b) is to enforce payment through the agency of criminal courts and deter non-payment of tax. Thus, what is entrusted to the criminal court is merely the function of collecting it. In this case the decision of the Supreme Court in Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras[1953] 4 S.T.C. 188 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 274. was distinguished as that case was with regard to a transaction which took place prior to the amendment introduced by Act No. 25 of 1947. Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reasonable cause fails to pay the tax due within the time allowed. The Supreme Court in Nathulal v. State of M. P.A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 43. has held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. A statute may exclude the element of mens rea; it is, however, a sound rule of construction which is adopted in England and also accepted in India, to construe a provision which creates an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it except where the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes mens rea. In the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, mens rea has not been excluded expressly or by necessary implication. While considering a case under the Central Sales Tax Act, K. K. Mathew, J. (as he then was), in P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into consideration, refused to make the payment." Therefore, to make the respondent liable it has to be seen whether he deliberately failed to pay the taxes. The attachment and prohibitory order dated 20th November, 1963, is on record and as per this order the house of the respondent was attached and he was restrained from alienating the same. This was towards the tax amounting to Rs. 2,973.06 for the previous assessment years. The respondent also contended that the attached property was also being put to auction. According to the respondent this attached property is more than worth Rs. 1 lac. So even after the subsequent assessments and the demand notices served on the respondent, he could reasonably think that the taxes assessed on him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
