PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. D RAMASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge of Salem. The respondent was prosecuted four not submitting a return for the year 1948-49. The return ought to have been made by 1st May, 1949, but was not made till 13th October, 1951, They trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 330. In appeal, relying on my judgment in Public prosecutor v. Kuncham Venkateswarulu the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused. The case in the above decision is for an offence under section 13 read with section 15 (h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. For a prosecution under section 13 for not maintaining true and correct accounts, a person must be a registered dealer or a person licensed under the Act. In dealing with that case I have referred to section 9 also as that is the section under which every sealer whose turnover is ten thousand rupees or more in a year should submit a return. Under section 8-A of the Act, every dealer whose turnover in any year is not less than seven thousand five hundred rupees shall, and any other dealer may, get himself registered under the Act. There was, therefore, obligation cast on every dealer whose turnover is more than seven thousand five hundred rupees to get himself register under that section. If he does not get himself registered under section 8-A, he certainly commits an offence under that section, the punishment for which will be under section 15 (h ). As every person whose turnover is more than Rs. 7, 500 must get himself registered and as every dealer whose turnover is Rs. 10, 000 or more should submit his return, for an offence under section 13 of the Act, I have no doubt held that he must be a registered dealer. I was in that case dealing only with the question whether the accused can be prosecuted for not maintaining true accounts without proving that he is a registered dealer. My observations with regard to the application of section 9 of the Act were obiter. I have made those observation as an argument was raised with regard to section 9. Really speaking, for an offence under section 13, section 9 does not apply at all. The question in this case is when the evidence makes out that the turnover for the year 1948-49 is over Rs. 21, 000 whether the accused should not have submitted a return. Section 9 clearly says that every dealer whose turnover is more that Rs. 10, 000 should submit his return. There can be no doubt that the accused in this case is a dealer and as such, he is bound to submit a return when his turnover is more than Rs. 10, 000. My observations in the above case regarding section 9 have been applied to this case, but as already stated, the consideration of section 9 seems to be quite obiter in that case which was only with reference to an offence under section 13 read with section 15 (h ). Section 15 also clearly says that any person who fails to submit a return as required by the provisions of the Act shall on conviction be liable to a fine. The expression used in this section is "any person". It is no doubt that "any person" would only refer to a dealer and not to a non-dealer. Under section 9 every dealer whose turnover is over Rs. 10, 000 though he ought to have got himself register, and whether he has got himself registered or not, shall submit a return and if he does not, he is certainly liable for the violation of the provisions of section 9 and is punishable under section 15 (a ). The accused in this case is therefore guilty for violating the provisions of section 9 of the act. The first court was, therefore, right in convicting him under section 15 (a) read with section 9 of the Act.

(2.) IN the result, the acquittal by the Sessions Judge is set side and the conviction by the trial court is restored. The accused is convicted under section 15 (a) read with section 9 of the Act sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Acquittal set aside.