STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. D M BHADRANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is presented by the State under S. 13 (4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (herein- a ter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, I C ass, III Court, Belgaum, rejecting an at plication made by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Dharwar under S.13(3) (b) of the Act. The respondent was an excise contractor. According to the State, he was in arrears of tax paya. He under the Act. For the purpose of recovery of the tax due, an application was made before the learned Magistrate under sub-sec. (2) of S. 13 of the Act. The application was rejected by the Magistrate on the following two grounds: i) As the amount to be recovered was more than the amount of fine which he was competent to impose under sub- sec. (2) of S. 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had no competence to recover the amount; ii) As the respondent was admittedly residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, the penalty could not be recovered by the Court.

(2.) As far as the first ground is concerned, the learned Magistrate was not right in holding that he could not recover any amount of sales tax which was in excess of the amount of fine which he was competent to impose, under sub-sec. (2) of S. 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 13 of the Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, on a;n application to any Magistrate, such Magistrate could proceed to recover the amount of sales tax due under the Act as if it were a fine imposed by him. Ss. 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribe the procedure for recovery of fine i.e., by attachment and sale of movable or immovable property. Whatever may be the amount of sales tax due, the effect of S, 13 (3) (b) of the Act, is to empower the Magistrate to recover the said amount as if it were a fine imposed by him, i.e., by following the procedure prescribed under Ss. 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to levy fine not exceeding the maximum amount fixed under sub-section (2) of S. 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no bearing on the question.

(3.) As regards the second ground, no information is made available as to whether any specific property which was sought to be attached and sold was mentioned in the application before the Magistrate. From the addresses furnished, both in the application filed before the learned Magistrate and before this Court, it is seen that the respondent is a resident of a village in Chitradurga district. Tn these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Magistrate had committed any error in rejecting the application and directing the applicant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate i.e.. the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the respondent is residing or the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property belonging to the respondent which is sought to be attached and sold is situated.