Return-filing liability under rule 6(1) required strict proof of statutory conditions before conviction could stand.

Liability to file a return under rule 6(1) depended on proof that the dealer had commenced business after the relevant date and that the estimated turnover for the first twelve months met the prescribed threshold. The prosecution had to establish these ingredients before sustaining conviction under section 15(a), and the accused's failure to prove his own plea did not reduce that burden. On the facts, no evidence showed the requisite condition precedent for rule 6(1) liability, so the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was bound to submit the return and the conviction could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the accused was liable to submit a return under rule 6(1) so as to sustain the conviction under section 15(a).

Analysis: Rule 11 operated only where the dealer was liable to submit a return under rule 6. Rule 6 required proof that the dealer had commenced business after the relevant date and that the estimated turnover for the first twelve months was not less than the prescribed amount. No evidence established that condition precedent. The failure of the accused to prove his own plea did not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the ingredients of the offence.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish that the accused was a dealer liable to submit the return under rule 6(1), and the conviction could not be sustained.

---