STATE OF MYSORE Vs. N ASARAVATHULLA AND COAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Mysore has preferred these three appeals against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. Nos. 857/52-53, 1342/51-52 and 1410/51-52 respectively, on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore. In each of the said three criminal cases the acquittal was in respect of an offence under Section 20 (b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1848. The accused in the said three cases were all unlicensed dealers in hides and skins and had contended that Rule 23 (5) (of the Rules under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948) which pertained to the sales of hides or skins by dealers other than licensed dealers in hides or skins, was ultra vires. The learned Magistrate took the view that this Rule was in conflict with Section 5 (vi) of the Act and was therefore ultra vires, and that the non-payment of the tax due under the assessment made under that Rule was no offence. Consequently he acquitted all the accused in the said three cases. The question of the validity of Rule 23 (5) being common to all these three cases, these appeals were all heard together.

(2.) Rule 23 (5) runs as follows :

(3.) The contention advanced on behalf of the State in these appeals, briefly, is that under Clause (vi) of Section 5, the liability to tax only at a single prescribed point in a series of sales of hides and skins by successive dealers, is not a benefit which has been granted by the Legislature unconditionally or absolutely; it is urged that this benefit is governed by the opening words in Section 5 and that therefore the benefit under Clause (vi) regarding the liability to tax only at a single prescribed point is subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed or imposed by the rules. Therefore, it is urged, the benefit under Clause (vi) in regard to the liability to tax at only one prescribed point cannot be claimed independently of any restrictions and conditions that may have been prescribed in the exercise of the powers conferred by the opening words of Section 57 Sri D.M. Chandrasekhar for the Advocate General has argued that the restrictions and conditions subject to which the single point at which the sale of hides and skins is liable to tax, have been set out in Rules 22 and 23. Where the dealers in hides and skins choose not to subject themselves to such conditions and restrictions, then, the sales of hides and skins by them will be covered by Sub-rule (5) of Rule 23. The contention of Sri Ullal on behalf of the respondents, is to the effect that the benefit of liability to be taxed at only a single prescribed point in a series of sales of hides and skins, is a benefit which is available under Clause (vi) of Section 5 to all dealers in hides and skins and that no restrictions or conditions can be imposed in the rules so as to take away this benefit.