1953 (8) TMI 18 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court affirms State appeal competence, non-resident dealer liability, and evidentiary standards in criminal cases.

The court upheld the competency of State appeals under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, and affirmed the liability of non-resident dealers under the ... - Issues Involved:1. Competency of State Appeals under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, vis-`a-vis Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Liability of non-resident dealers under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.3. Validity of Section 16(A) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act concerning non-resident dealers.4. Evidentiary standards in criminal cases involving counterfeit currency.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Competency of State Appeals under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, vis-`a-vis Article 14 of the Constitution:The respondents contended that Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that it provides unequal rights of appeal favoring the State over private individuals. They claimed this constituted 'class discrimination' and lacked a reasonable basis for classification. They referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal v. A.A. Sarkar, which held that arbitrary powers vested in the State violated Article 14. The court, however, differentiated between the State's duty to maintain law and order and its optional commercial activities, concluding that the State's right to appeal in criminal cases is a reasonable classification. The court also noted that the necessity to preserve law and order is as pertinent today as it was in the 19th century, and that the right of appeal given to the State does not inherently lead to arbitrary discrimination.2. Liability of Non-resident Dealers under the Madras General Sales Tax Act:The respondents argued that the Madras General Sales Tax Act did not intend to impose liability on non-residents. They cited the removal of an explanation in the Act that previously deemed agents of non-residents as dealers. The court held that the relocation of this explanation to Section 14A did not alter the liability of non-residents. The court emphasized that non-residents could not escape tax liabilities for transactions conducted within the State, as supported by the decision in Vakkan v. Government of Madras, which affirmed that non-residents could be taxed if the transactions justified it.3. Validity of Section 16(A) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act Concerning Non-resident Dealers:The court examined the amendment brought by Madras Act XXV of 1947, which added Section 16(A) to the Sales Tax Act, prohibiting the questioning of tax assessments in criminal courts. The respondents argued this was ultra vires under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. However, the court referenced the decision in Syed Mohamed & Co. v. State of Madras, which upheld the validity of Section 16(A), dismissing the argument that it contravened Article 20(1).4. Evidentiary Standards in Criminal Cases Involving Counterfeit Currency:In Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 1952, the court evaluated the evidence against the accused, who was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of counterfeit coins and related materials from the accused's house. The court noted the lack of independent witnesses and the proximity of the police station, which could have facilitated the presence of more respectable witnesses. The court concluded that the Assistant Sessions Judge's decision was not manifestly wrong and dismissed the State's appeal.Individual Case Analysis:Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 1952:The court accepted the prosecution's evidence that the goods were sold in Fort Cochin and convicted the accused, imposing a fine of Rs. 100 and directing the payment of Rs. 513-3-0 as sales tax.Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1952:The court acknowledged that some transactions were conducted in Alleppey and adjusted the sales tax liability to Rs. 2,537. The accused was fined Rs. 300 and directed to pay the adjusted sales tax.Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 1952:The court found that the majority of transactions were in Alleppey, reducing the sales tax liability to Rs. 40. The accused was fined Rs. 40 and directed to pay the same amount as sales tax.Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1952:The court found that all transactions were conducted in Alleppey and dismissed the State's appeal.Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 1952:The court adjusted the sales tax liability to Rs. 5,144 and imposed a fine of Rs. 450, directing the accused to pay the adjusted sales tax.Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1952:The court adjusted the sales tax liability to Rs. 784 and imposed a fine of Rs. 100, directing the accused to pay the adjusted sales tax.Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 778 and 655 of 1952:The court upheld the State's appeal in Criminal Revision Case No. 778 of 1952, convicting the accused for transactions prior to 1st January 1948, and imposing a fine of Rs. 200 and directing the payment of Rs. 1,867-10-6 as sales tax. The court dismissed Criminal Revision Case No. 655 of 1952, upholding the validity of Section 16(A) of the Sales Tax Act.Conclusion:The court dismissed the objections regarding the competency of State appeals under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, and upheld the liability of non-resident dealers under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The court also affirmed the validity of Section 16(A) of the Sales Tax Act and maintained the evidentiary standards required in criminal cases involving counterfeit currency. The individual appeals and revision cases were decided based on the specific evidence and circumstances of each case.