Wilful filing of an untrue sales tax return remained prosecutable despite unaccepted compounding and later statutory substitution.

A prosecution for wilfully filing an incomplete and incorrect sales tax return under section 15(2)(a) was not barred by an unaccepted compounding proposal, because a mere offer or fixation of compounding fee did not complete the compounding transaction. The challenge to rule 13 also failed, as that rule governed return and assessment procedure while the charge arose under the substantive offence provision. The later substitution of section 15 did not render the offence invalid, since no clear retrospective intent was shown. The revisions were therefore rejected and the prosecution maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution for wilful submission of an incomplete and incorrect return under section 15(2)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was barred by the alleged compounding proceedings, by the alleged invalidity of rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, or by the substitution of section 15 by the Madras General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1956.

Analysis: The charge was under section 15(2)(a) for submitting an untrue return, and not under the provision dealing with evasion of tax or compounding fee. A mere offer or fixation of compounding fee did not bar prosecution unless the compounding transaction had been accepted and completed. Rule 13 governed the time and procedure for returns and assessment, but the offence alleged arose under section 15(2)(a); therefore, the validity of rule 13 was not material to the prosecution. The substitution of the new section 15 did not show an intention to make the provision retrospective, and the offence provision remained substantive rather than procedural.

Conclusion: The prosecution was maintainable and the preliminary objections failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were rightly rejected because the statutory objections did not affect the validity of the prosecution for the charged tax offence.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for wilful filing of an untrue sales tax return under the substantive offence provision is not barred by an unaccepted compounding offer, is not defeated by an attack on an inapplicable procedural rule, and is not rendered invalid merely because the offence provision was later substituted absent clear retrospective intent.

---