Tax default recovery as a fine is procedural, and conviction orders must specify the unpaid tax where the statute requires it.

Conviction under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act required the court to specify the unpaid tax in the conviction order and direct its recovery as if it were a fine; the Magistrate could not omit the tax component or split it by part of the assessment period. A direction treating the defaulted tax as recoverable in that manner was held to be only a change in mode of recovery, not a new offence or enhanced punishment, so it did not offend Articles 20 or 265 of the Constitution. The stated ratio is that a procedural recovery provision may apply to tax default convictions where the statute so directs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on conviction under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the Magistrate was required to specify the tax defaulted and direct its recovery as if it were a fine, and whether the Magistrate could split the tax by part of the assessment period. (ii) Whether such a direction for recovery of the tax as if it were a fine offended Articles 20 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, on conviction under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the Magistrate was required to specify the tax defaulted and direct its recovery as if it were a fine, and whether the Magistrate could split the tax by part of the assessment period.

Analysis: Section 10 required the assessed tax to be paid in the manner and within the time specified in the assessment notice. Where prosecution followed for failure to pay, conviction under Section 15(b) required the court to specify the tax that had not been paid, and that specified amount became recoverable as if it were a fine. The statutory scheme did not permit the Magistrate to omit the tax component or to confine recovery to only a portion of the relevant period.

Conclusion: The defaulted tax had to be specified in the conviction order and made recoverable as if it were a fine, and the Magistrate could not split up the tax in the manner adopted below.

Issue (ii): Whether such a direction for recovery of the tax as if it were a fine offended Articles 20 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional objection failed because the taxing statute was already in force when the offence was committed, and the change affected only the mode of recovery. A procedural alteration in execution did not amount to an ex post facto law or impose a greater punishment. Recovery of tax as a fine was treated as one permissible mode of realization, alongside other recovery methods, and did not create a heavier penalty within the meaning of Article 20. On that footing, Article 265 was not attracted.

Conclusion: The amended recovery provision did not violate Articles 20 or 265 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded on the merits, the orders of the court below were modified to include the tax dues as recoverable amounts, and the remaining connected matters were dismissed on a separate procedural footing.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory change that affects only the mode of recovery of a tax liability, without creating a new offence or enhancing the punishment, is procedural and may be applied to convictions for default in payment of tax; on conviction, the court must specify the defaulted tax where the statute so directs.

---