Skip to content


State of U.P. Vs. Babu Mian - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax;Civil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberGovt. Appeal No. 89 of 1964
Judge
Reported in[1966]18STC326(All)
AppellantState of U.P.
RespondentBabu Mian
Appellant AdvocateGovernment Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Das and ;Behariji Das, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....further the respondent failed to file a proper return of his turnover and to deposit tax on the admitted turnover for the same year and as such contravened the provisions of rule 41(2) of the act. he also held that as, on the failure of the respondent to file a proper return of his turnover, and to deposit the tax on the admitted turnover, the sales tax officer did not follow the procedure laid down in rule 41, the respondent could not be prosecuted under section 14(1)(c) either. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i am however satisfied that this contention is not possessed of any substance. ..6. a plain reading of this section shows that the liability thereunder arises only when the person concerned has either failed to submit, without reasonable cause, the return of..........be inferred since he closed his business shortly after coming to learn of the rejection of his renewal application. he also held that as, on the failure of the respondent to file a proper return of his turnover, and to deposit the tax on the admitted turnover, the sales tax officer did not follow the procedure laid down in rule 41, the respondent could not be prosecuted under section 14(1)(c) either. he further dismissed the complaint and ordered the acquittal of the respondent.4. on behalf of the state, it was strenuously contended that as the aforesaid view of the learned sub-divisional magistrate was contrary to law, the order of acquittal was unjustified and the respondent was liable to conviction under both the counts. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i am.....
Judgment:

J.N. Takru, J.

1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, City Aligarh, dated the 11th October, 1963, acquitting the respondent under Section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act.

2. The aforesaid appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the Sales Tax Officer, Incharge Aligarh, after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, on the allegations that the respondent was the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Babu Mian Ibrahim, which carried on the business of vegetable ghee in Aligarh in the year 1958-59. On the 28th March, 1958, the respondent applied for registration under Section 8-A of the Act, but on his failure to furnish the security demanded under Section 8-A(b), his registration application was rejected on the 13th May, 1958. He however carried on his business without a registration certificate during 1958-59, and as such contravened the provisions of Section 8-A(1)(a) of the Act. Further the respondent failed to file a proper return of his turnover and to deposit tax on the admitted turnover for the same year and as such contravened the provisions of Rule 41(2) of the Act. The respondent was, therefore, liable to conviction for both these contraventions under Section 14(1)(c)(ii) and Section 14(1)(c)(i) of the Act respectively.

3. The respondent admitted that he was the proprietor of the aforesaid firm, that he applied for the renewal of the registration of his business during the year 1958-59, that pending the renewal he carried on the business but when his application for renewal was rejected he stopped it and disposed of the goods in stock. Further that he filed the return regularly, but did not deposit the sales tax as he was not liable for the same. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the view that as the respondent had applied for the renewal of the registration certificate at the beginning of 1958-59, he did not violate Section 14(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, by carrying on business till the disposal of that application, and no mala fide intention or disobedience on his part could be inferred since he closed his business shortly after coming to learn of the rejection of his renewal application. He also held that as, on the failure of the respondent to file a proper return of his turnover, and to deposit the tax on the admitted turnover, the Sales Tax Officer did not follow the procedure laid down in Rule 41, the respondent could not be prosecuted under Section 14(1)(c) either. He further dismissed the complaint and ordered the acquittal of the respondent.

4. On behalf of the State, it was strenuously contended that as the aforesaid view of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was contrary to law, the order of acquittal was unjustified and the respondent was liable to conviction under both the counts. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am however satisfied that this contention is not possessed of any substance.

5. Now Section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Act, in so far as it is relevant for the present purposes, lays down that,

Any person who-

(i) fails to submit without reasonable cause return of his turnover under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or ;

(ii) carries on business as a dealer without applying for registration under and in accordance with Section 8-A ; or...shall...on conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees....

6. A plain reading of this section shows that the liability thereunder arises only when the person concerned has either failed to submit, without reasonable cause, the return of the turnover or/and carried on business as a dealer without applying for registration. In the present case, it is admitted that the respondent submitted a return of his turnover and also applied for the registration of his business in the year in question. It is also admitted that soon after coming to learn that his application for the registration of his business was rejected, he stopped that business. As the section does not prohibit the carrying on of the business, until the application for its registration has been granted, a person can carry on the business pending the disposal of that application. Hence the respondent cannot be held to have violated Section 14(1)(c)(ii) by carrying on his business in the circumstances mentioned above. As for the offence under Section 14(1)(c)(i), I am of the opinion that, as the deposit of the amount of tax calculated on the turnover shown in the return, is distinct from, and not an integral part of, the return itself the respondent by not depositing the tax in advance, cannot be held to have failed to submit the return of his turnover. Hence on a bare reading of this section the respondent cannot be held to have committed either of the offences and his acquittal thereunder must, therefore, be affirmed. The result therefore is that this appeal fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //