Limitation for acts done under the Act did not bar prosecution for doing business without registration

A general limitation clause covering proceedings for anything done under the Act did not extend to a prosecution for carrying on business as a dealer without registration. The court construed "anything done under the Act" as referring to acts or, where appropriate, omissions done in compliance with the statute, not direct contraventions of it. Carrying on business without registration was a positive breach of the registration requirement and therefore outside section 26(2). The three-month limitation did not bar the prosecution under section 8(1) read with section 24(1), and the acquittal could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation period in section 26(2) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 applied to a prosecution for carrying on business as a dealer without registration under section 8(1) read with section 24(1) of that Act.

Analysis: The expression "any person" in section 26(2), read literally, would extend the three-month limitation to offences under section 24, but that construction would make the penal provisions largely ineffective and produce an absurd result. The words "anything done under the Act" were held to cover acts done in accordance with the Act and, in appropriate cases, omissions required by the Act, but not acts done in direct contravention of the Act. Carrying on business as a dealer without registration was treated as a positive act in breach of section 8(1), not as something done under the Act. On that footing, the prosecution was not governed by section 26(2).

Conclusion: The limitation in section 26(2) did not bar the prosecution for the offence under section 8(1) read with section 24(1), and the acquittal was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An act constituting a direct contravention of the statute is not an act done under the Act, so a general limitation clause framed in those terms does not bar prosecution for the statutory offence.

---