Wilful false return under sales tax law includes deliberate omission based on a mistaken view of filing requirements.

Wilfulness in a sales tax return offence excludes mere inadvertence or mistake, but covers a deliberate omission made under a wrong view of the law or ignorance of the law. The assessee admitted that a return was required but left out wholesale sales because he believed filing at year-end would suffice; that mistaken understanding did not negate wilfulness. The omission was therefore treated as a wilful submission of a false return, and the conviction was sustained, although the sentence was reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the failure to submit a return for wholesale sales, based on an asserted belief that the return could be filed at the end of the year, amounted to a wilful submission of a false return within the meaning of the sales tax offence provision.

Analysis: The expression "wilful" was held to exclude cases of inadvertence or mistake, but not cases where the omission resulted from a wrong view of the law or ignorance of the law. On the facts, the appellant admitted that a return had to be filed but omitted the wholesale sales because he believed filing at the end of the year would suffice. That omission was deliberate, and the belief amounted only to a mistaken view of the legal requirement. The absence of a correct understanding of the law did not negate wilfulness.

Conclusion: The omission constituted a wilful submission of a false return, so the conviction was sustained. The sentence was reduced, but the finding of guilt remained against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The offence required deliberate exclusion of taxable turnover, and a mistaken view of the filing obligation did not excuse the default.

Ratio Decidendi: Wilfulness in a sales tax return offence excludes mere inadvertence or mistake, but includes a deliberate omission made under a wrong view of the law or ignorance of the law.

---