Wilful non-payment of assessed sales tax attracts criminal liability even while assessment challenges are pending.

Non-payment of assessed sales tax within the time allowed was treated as a wilful default where the failure was deliberate and conscious, not merely inadvertent. Pending appeals or revisions against the assessment did not suspend the obligation to pay the demand, although the accused could still challenge the validity or excessiveness of the assessment. On the facts stated, the amount finally due remained unpaid in time, so liability under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was attracted. The offence was also held to be one governed by the Criminal Procedure Code because the Act did not prescribe a special trial or appeal procedure, making the State's appeal against acquittal competent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-payment of assessed sales tax within the time allowed amounted to a wilful failure punishable under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act notwithstanding pending appeals and revisions against the assessment. (ii) Whether an appeal by the State against acquittal for the offence under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was competent under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue (i): Whether non-payment of assessed sales tax within the time allowed amounted to a wilful failure punishable under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act notwithstanding pending appeals and revisions against the assessment.

Analysis: The liability under section 14(b) arose on a wilful failure to pay tax due within the time allowed by notice. The expression "wilful" was treated as meaning deliberate and conscious default, not mere inadvertence or mala fides. Pending challenge to the assessment did not suspend the statutory obligation to pay the amount demanded, and the accused could defend himself by showing that the assessment or demand was invalid or excessive. On the facts, the default continued even after appellate and revisional relief, and the amount finally due remained unpaid within time.

Conclusion: The respondent's non-payment was a wilful default and he was guilty under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Issue (ii): Whether an appeal by the State against acquittal for the offence under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was competent under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: Section 14(b) created an offence but did not lay down the procedure for trial. The offence was therefore one to which the Criminal Procedure Code applied, and the statutory provisions governing criminal appeals were attracted. The absence of a special appellate provision in the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not exclude the State's right to appeal against acquittal under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusion: The State appeal against acquittal was competent under section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Final Conclusion: The acquittals were set aside, the respondent was convicted in both matters, and the conviction and sentence followed from the finding of wilful non-payment under the sales tax law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory obligation to pay assessed tax within the time allowed is breached by a deliberate failure to pay, and a pending challenge to the assessment does not by itself negate wilfulness where the demand remains unpaid; in the absence of a special contrary procedure, the general criminal procedural law governs the prosecution and appeal.

---