1. Petition (W.P. No. 2144 of 1967) by Messrs Gamier & Co., for a writ of prohibition against the State of Madras represented by the District Magistrate, South Arcot, Cuddalore, and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddalore, directing them to forbear from executing the warrant issued under Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act at Pondicherry State through the District Magistrate, Pondicherry. The petitioners' contention is that no sales were effected in the Madras State. But this is not the subject-matter of the writ proceedings as it is being agitated before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The only question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the District Magistrate, Cuddalore, has no jurisdiction to issue a distress warrant against the movables of the petitioners in Pondicherry State. The same question arises for consideration in the connected Criminal Revision Case No. 880 of 1967 where also Messrs Garnier & Co. are the petitioners.
2. Under Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, any tax assessed on a dealer can on application to a Magistrate be recovered by such Magistrate from the dealer as if it were a fine imposed on the dealer by the Magistrate. Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the issue of warrant for levy of fine. It is clear from Section 386(1 )(a) that issue of warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property of the defaulter is one of the modes of recovering the fine. Section 387, Criminal Procedure Code, mentions the effect of such warrant. It is clear from Section 387, Criminal Procedure Code, that a warrant issued under Section 386, Sub-section (1), Clause (a). Criminal Procedure Code, by any court may be executed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such court and it shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property without such limits, when endorsed by the District Magistrate or Chief Presidency Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such property is found. The enforcement of the warrant outside territorial jurisdiction of the court is not confined to the State. It is clear from Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in the writ petition and the criminal revision case that the warrant could not be issued to Pondicherry State which is outside the territorial limits of the Madras State.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry  20 S.T.C. 215 in which it was held that there was a total surrender in the matter of sales tax legislation by the Pondicherry Assembly in favour of the Madras Legislature and therefore the Pondicherry Sales Tax Act, 1965, was void or still-born. It is unnecessary to consider this decision as it relates to the applicability of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965, as then introduced in the Pondicherry State. In the present case it is irrelevant to consider whether the Madras General Sales Tax Act applies to the Pondicherry State or whether any other Sales Tax Act is in force in the Pondicherry State. The question that arises for consideration relates to the execution of a warrant for the realisation of the sales tax amount under Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. I have already pointed out that by virtue of Sections 386 and 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there could be no objection to the procedure adopted for the recovery of the sales tax amount as fine as it is the usual procedure adopted for collecting fines from persons convicted in this State and residing in Pondicherry State.
4. The writ petition and the criminal revision case are dismissed.