S M HASHIM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these revisions, the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th May, 1982, passed on him in C.C. No. 1730 of 1981 by the First Additional J.M.F.C., Sirsi, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Karwar in Criminal Appeals Nos. 36 to 41 of 1982 on his file.

(2.) The petitioner was prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under section 29(g) of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 17 of the Rules framed thereunder on the allegation that he had failed to submit returns from April, 1981 to September, 1981. The petitioner, it is not disputed, is a registered dealer and dealing in furnitures at Sirsi. He is a proprietor of a firm named and styled as "Moonlight Furniture". According to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, who is the complainant in the cases, the petitioner having failed to submit his monthly return as provided under section 12-B(2) of the Act, had committed the offence punishable under section 29(g) of the Act. Although the accused pleaded not guilty and contended that he was not an assessee as such, who is required to submit the returns as provided under section 12-B of the Act, the learned Magistrate held that under section 12 and 12-B(1), every dealer was bound to submit monthly return and he having failed to send such returns had committed the offence punishable under section 29(g) of the Act.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge also agreeing with the Magistrate concluded that every dealer whether he is an assessee or not is required to send every month to the assessing authority, the statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed including the taxable turnover during the proceeding month and to pay in advance the whole amount of tax payable by him on the basis of his actual taxable turnover during the period and section 12-B(1) of the Act comes into play when a person is a dealer whether he is an assessee or not and as such the petitioner was guilty of the offence. In that view, he having dismissed the appeal, the petitioner has filed these revision petitions.