Statutory omission to register as a dealer falls within the limitation bar for prosecution under the sales tax law.

A dealer's failure to register before carrying on business was treated as a statutory omission punishable under the sales tax law, and that omission was regarded as an act done under the Act for limitation purposes. Relying on the General Clauses Act and prior authority on statutory omissions, the Court held that prosecutions for breach of a statutory duty to register fall within the limitation provision in section 26(2). The complaint was therefore barred by limitation and the prosecution could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution for carrying on business as a dealer without registration was barred by limitation under section 26(2) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 8(1) imposed a statutory duty on a dealer not to carry on business without registration, and section 24(1)(a) made contravention punishable. The omission to get registered was treated as an omission done under the Act, and section 2(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was relied upon to treat an illegal omission as an act done for the purposes of the limitation provision. The earlier ruling on returns and accounts under the Act was applied to support the view that prosecutions for statutory omissions fall within section 26(2).

Conclusion: The prosecution was barred by limitation under section 26(2), and the dismissal of the complaint was .

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute punishes a dealer's omission to comply with a statutory duty, that omission is an act done under the Act for the purpose of the limitation provision governing prosecutions.

---