Payer's right to direct appropriation prevails where two distinct liabilities exist and no statute says otherwise.

Where a person is liable to pay two distinct sums and the statute does not expressly provide otherwise, the payer is entitled to direct how a tender is appropriated. The Court cannot compel application of the payment to tax arrears merely because that component is recoverable as if it were a fine. The Magistrate's direction overriding the accused's stated appropriation was therefore erroneous and was quashed, and the amount had to be applied in the manner chosen by the payer.

---

---

Issues: Whether, when an accused convicted under section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act tendered money towards the fine but not towards the tax arrears, the Court could compel appropriation of the payment towards tax instead of according the payer's stated appropriation.

Analysis: In the absence of an express statutory provision to the contrary, a person liable to make payments in respect of two distinct items has the right to direct the appropriation of the amount tendered in the manner most beneficial to him. The Court has no jurisdiction to override that choice merely because one component represents tax recoverable as if it were a fine. The earlier authorities relied upon supported the same principle of appropriation according to the payer's intention.

Conclusion: The order compelling appropriation of the amount towards tax was erroneous and was set aside; the payment had to be appropriated in the manner directed by the accused.

Final Conclusion: The reference was accepted and the Magistrate's direction was quashed, affirming the payer's right to choose the appropriation of the tendered amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person is liable to pay two distinct sums and the statute does not expressly provide otherwise, the payer may direct appropriation of the amount tendered, and the Court cannot compel a different appropriation.

---