KKARIAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these two revision petitions is a dealer in fried-gram knows as 'Hurigadale' as has been mentioned in the charge-sheet itself. He has been convicted in C.C. Nos. 537 and 538 of 1951-52 on the file of the City Magistrate, Mysore, for failure to pay sales tax for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 within 21 days from the date of service of demand notice. It is contended that the petitioner did not file an appeal against the demand notice under Section 14 of the Sales Tax Act and that he did not take any steps to question his liability to pay the sales tax under Sections 15 and 16 of that Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution, under Section 22 of the Act no assessment made under it shall be called in question in any Court save as provided in Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. It has however to be noticed at this stage that Section 6 of the Act makes it clear that the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette make an exception, or reduction in rate in respect of any tax payable under the Act. It is not disputed that 'Hurigadale' is exempted from the levy of sales tax. It is argued that this is however a point which should have been taken up in an appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Officer and as the petitioner has failed to do so he is prevented by Section 22 of the Act from raising the question in a civil or criminal Court.

(3.) As observed in the case reported in Rama Iyer v. Government of Mysore ([1951] 2 S.T.C. 122; A.I.R. 1951 Mys. 70),