LAWS(MAD)-1963-4-30

HABIBUNNISSA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

Decided On April 24, 1963
HABIBUNNISSA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a licensed dealer and tanner, was assessed to sales tax for the year 1953-54 to a tax of Rs. 10,937-80 nP. THE turnover consisted of purchases of untanned hides and skins from licensed dealers which attracted tax at the point of purchase under section 3(1) read with section 5(vi) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. THE Tribunal's order, on appeal, was made on 9th September, 1957. It does not appear that the petitioner agitated the matter further by filing a revision petition to this Court. This petition is to forbid the revenue from collecting the tax.

(2.) THE rule is asked for on two grounds. THE first of them is with reference to section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. THE contention is that the particular Magistrate to whom application has been by the department is competent to impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 2,000, and that, as, in the instant case, the tax far exceeds that amount, the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. That statutory provision enables the department to apply to any Magistrate to recover the tax as if it were a fine imposed by him. THE fiction is introduced merely for the purpose of recovery and its object is not to make the tax a fine in reality. THE provision is merely another device of collecting the revenue. THE jurisdiction of the Magistrate to fine for a penal offence is no doubt limited under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THE jurisdiction of the Magistrate to collect tax, as if it were a fine, is not under that Code, but under the provisions of the enabling fiscal Act. THE foundation of the Magistrate's jurisdiction being the fiscal Act itself, I do not think that the pecuniary limit of fine prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied to the Magistrate when he acts under section 24(2)(b). This provision, as a matter of fact, makes any Magistrate competent to entertain an application and direct recovery of tax as if it were a fine imposed by him. In my opinion, there is no substance in this point.