ERACHSHAW DEBU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision Nos. 119 of 1978, 120 of 1978, 121 of 1978, 122 of 1978, 123 of 1978, 124 of 1978, 125 of 1978 and 126 of 1978 are revisions filed by the same petitioner against his conviction under section 14(1)(b) and ((THELAW)) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act. 1950, and the sentence of fire of Rs.1000/ - under each count for breach of S.14(1) (b) and S.14(1) ((THELAW)) in default the sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment for each offence and maintained on appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore. In all these revisions identical facts, identical questions are involved and all of them are, therefore. Being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case at the trial was that the petitioner was an excise contractor for country liquor in the State of Madhya Bharat and bad his wine shops at Mhow and near about. The Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act was imposed on 1 -5 -1950 and it is alleged that the petitioner, therefore, was a dealer registered under the Sales Tax Act and his turnover brought him within the taxable limits. It is further alleged that under S.7 of the Madhya Bharat Act he should have filed a return for every quarter and paid sales -tax on the basis of the assessments. These cases pertain to different quarters and for failure to file returns in three quarters one prosecution was launched. It was also alleged that as the petitioner failed to file his returns - within the prescribed time best judgment assessments were made and demand notices were issued, but the petitioner did not pay the amount of tax so assessed, Thus, it was alleged that the petitioner committed the breach by not filing the return after the end of the quarter and also did not pay tax as required within the prescribed time and thereby committed breach of S.14(1)(b) and ((THELAW)) and as non compliance with these provisions has been made penal by the provisions contained in sub -section (4) of S.14, a prosecution was launched and at trial the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. It is against this that the present revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State contended that the Notification issued in the Madhya Bharat Govt. Gazette clearly talks of an order issued by the Rajpramukh of the State and therefore, it could not be said that it is not a Notification in accordance with the Government Regulation Act He further contended that although returns were to be filed after each quarter and according to the prosecution, best judgment assessments were made immediately thereafter but he frankly conceded that as the order of sanction itself shows that the notices were served for the first time in 1962 still he contended that it could not be said that the petitioner failed to comply with the two provisions because of any reasonable cause. According to the learned counsel the petitioner has not made out any reasonable cause and in fact that should have been submitted to the tax authorities when notices for demand were issued and served to him in 1962. It was further contended by the learned counsel that when the sales -tax was made payable no excuse could be made that because: of the conditions of the licence he was bound to charge the rate of country liquor fixed in the licence itself. He was bound to collect the tax and if the petitioner has chosen not to do it that could not be considered to be a reasonable excuse for non -payment of tax. He further contended that in fact the petitioner in order to avoid the tax and the proceedings against him filed a suit and delayed the matters, it appears that the notices could not be served on him because the suit was pending in the Civil Court. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner has been rightly convicted.