Collateral challenge to tax assessment barred in criminal prosecution where statutory remedies were available and final assessment stood.

Section 16-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act bars a Criminal Court from reopening an assessment or the assessed liability in a prosecution where the statute provides a complete mechanism for assessment, appeal, revision and final scrutiny. An assessee must raise objections to liability and quantum before the statutory authorities, and once that process has been used or has become final, the criminal forum cannot entertain a collateral challenge on grounds that were available under the Act. The provision remains open only to challenges beyond the competence of those authorities, including ultra vires objections. Section 16-A was held intra vires, and the prosecution could proceed on the basis of the final assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 16-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act validly bars a Criminal Court from questioning the assessment of tax or the liability of a person assessed under the Act, and whether the accused could still dispute such liability in the prosecution.

Analysis: The Act creates a complete machinery for assessment, appeal, revision, and further scrutiny, enabling an assessee to contest both liability and quantum before the statutory authorities. Once that machinery has been invoked or has become final, the assessment cannot be reopened in a criminal prosecution on grounds that were open to challenge under the Act. Section 16-A therefore operates only to prevent a collateral challenge in Criminal Court; it does not deny relief on grounds that the statutory authorities themselves cannot entertain, such as a challenge that the provision is ultra vires. The provision was held to be within legislative competence and not contrary to the Constitution or the Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusion: Section 16-A is intra vires and the Criminal Court cannot question the validity of the assessment or the assessed liability on grounds which could have been raised under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution could proceed on the basis of the final assessment, and the accused was not entitled to resist conviction by reopening the tax liability in the criminal forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides a self-contained hierarchy of remedies to challenge assessment and liability, a Criminal Court cannot entertain a collateral objection to that assessment in a prosecution for default, except on grounds beyond the competence of the statutory authorities.

---