Sales tax prosecution requires proof of legal liability and non-payment before conviction can be sustained.

In a prosecution for non-payment of sales tax, the prosecution had to affirmatively prove that the accused was legally liable to pay the tax and had failed to pay it. Mere reliance on an unchallenged assessment or on a demand for tax was insufficient without independent evidence of liability. Because the prosecution did not discharge that burden, the court held that liability was not established and the acquittal was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved, beyond the accused's failure to pay, that he was liable to pay the general sales tax so as to sustain conviction for non-payment.

Analysis: A prosecution for contravention of the sales tax rules and the penal provision under the Madras General Sales Tax Act required affirmative proof that the accused was legally liable to pay the tax claimed. Mere reliance on the fact that the assessee had not challenged the assessment or that tax was demanded was insufficient. In the absence of independent evidence establishing liability, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden.

Conclusion: The accused was not shown to be liable to pay the tax, and the acquittal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for failure to pay sales tax, the burden lies on the prosecution to affirmatively prove both liability to pay the tax and non-payment.

---