Sales tax non-payment liability survives repeal, and assessment cannot be challenged in the criminal prosecution.

In a prosecution for failure to pay sales tax under section 15(b), the accused could not collaterally challenge the validity or propriety of the assessment once the assessment and default were proved, and section 16-A barred the Magistrate from enquiring into that issue. The repeal and substitution of section 15(b) did not extinguish liability for offences already committed before the amendment, because the amended provision was not retrospective and no contrary legislative intention displaced the ordinary rule preserving prior liability. The prosecution for pre-amendment non-payment remained maintainable, and liability to punishment continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a prosecution for failure to pay sales tax under section 15(b), the accused can challenge the validity or propriety of the assessment; (ii) whether the repeal and substitution of section 15(b) by the amending Act extinguished liability for offences already committed before the amendment came into force.

Issue (i): Whether, in a prosecution for failure to pay sales tax under section 15(b), the accused can challenge the validity or propriety of the assessment.

Analysis: The offence consisted of an assessment made under the Act and the failure to pay the tax within the time allowed. Once those elements were proved, there was no scope under the wording of the provision for an enquiry into the correctness of the assessment. Section 16-A also barred the Magistrate from embarking on such an enquiry.

Conclusion: The validity or propriety of the assessment could not be examined in the criminal prosecution, and the acquittal on that basis was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the repeal and substitution of section 15(b) by the amending Act extinguished liability for offences already committed before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The amended provision came into force only on 1 October 1956, long after the offences were committed. The amending Act did not make section 14 retrospective, and section 1 made only sections 3 and 5 expressly retrospective. On the wording of the statute, no contrary intention was shown to displace the ordinary rule under the General Clauses Act preserving prior liability on repeal.

Conclusion: The repeal and re-enactment did not affect offences already committed or the liability to punishment for them.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution for non-payment under the repealed provision was maintainable, the acquittals were set aside, and convictions with nominal fines were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for non-payment of tax under a charging penal provision, once a lawful assessment and failure to pay are proved, the accused cannot collaterally challenge the assessment, and a repealing amendment does not extinguish pre-existing liability unless a clear contrary intention or retrospective operation is expressly provided.

---