NABIN CHANDRA BAROOAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner complains that he had been illegally convicted of the offences under Sections 34A 38 (4) and 38 (9) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 as amended by the 1964 Amendment Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) SECTION 38 (4) of the Act lays down that whoever not being a registered dealer, falsely represents, when purchasing goods, that he is a registered dealer, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate and in addition to any tax or penalty or both that may be due from him, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or with both. Section 38 (9) deals with evading the payment of tax and says that whoever fraudulently or wilfully evades the payment of any tax due under the Act, or conceals his liability to such tax on conviction is liable to a similar punishment.

(3.) THE petitioner's firm was dealing in contract works including well -rings culverts, slabs and other articles. In the year 1958 the question whether a contractor carrying on works such as building etc. works is liable to sales tax or not under the Act, came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and it was held therein that as the contractor does not buy or sell as a dealer but buys things for the purpose of carrying out his business, namely the contract work it cannot be said that the articles that go into the construction works could be treated as covered by the word 'sale' coming within the purview of the Act. Following the view expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court the Department appears to have cancelled the registration of the petitioner's firm with retrospective effect from 1.4.1956 and the order of cancellation was communicated to the petitioner, as seen from the records, on 11 -8 -61. The offences complained against the petitioner are said to have been committed by the firm during the period from 1.4 -56 to 11 -8 -61.