Lawfully due tax must be proved in prosecution; criminal court may examine assessment validity despite later amendment.

For an offence alleged under the unamended sales tax provision, the prosecution had to prove that the tax was in fact and in law due. The later insertion of Section 16A, which came into force after the alleged offence and complaint, did not bar the criminal court from examining whether the assessment was valid. The word "due" was construed as "lawfully due", so the accused could show that the tax was not properly payable. The court therefore treated the validity of the assessment as open to inquiry in the criminal proceedings, and the petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for an offence alleged to have been committed before the coming into force of the amending provision, the criminal court could examine whether the tax was lawfully due and whether Section 16A barred such inquiry.

Analysis: The charge was under Section 15(b) of the General Sales Tax Act, Madras Act IX of 1939, as it stood before amendment. The later amendment introducing Section 16A came into force only on 1 January 1948, after the alleged offence and after the complaint. In that setting, the offence remained one of failure to pay tax due under the unamended provision, and the prosecution had to establish that the tax was in fact and in law due. The expression "due" was read as meaning "lawfully due", and Section 16A was not treated as excluding inquiry by the criminal court into the validity of the assessment.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to show that the tax was not lawfully due, and the criminal court was not barred from examining the validity of the assessment. The petition succeeded.

---