Territorial execution of tax recovery warrants extended to movable property outside the Magistrate's local limits under criminal procedure.

Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 enabled recovery of assessed sales tax through a Magistrate as if it were a fine, and Sections 386(1)(a) and 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permitted attachment and sale of movable property within local limits and, on proper endorsement, beyond them where the property was found. The territorial reach of the Code extended throughout India except Jammu and Kashmir, so the presence of the movable property in Pondicherry did not by itself defeat execution of the warrant. The text states that the warrant was executable there and that the territorial challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a warrant issued for recovery of sales tax as if it were a fine could be executed against movable property situated outside the territorial limits of the issuing Magistrate's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 permitted recovery of assessed tax through a Magistrate as though it were a fine. Under Section 386(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warrant could be issued for levy by attachment and sale of movable property, and Section 387 of that Code authorised execution of such warrant within local jurisdiction and, when endorsed by the appropriate Magistrate, beyond those limits where the property was found. The territorial operation of the Code extended to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, and the fact that the property was in Pondicherry did not prevent execution of the warrant.

Conclusion: The warrant could validly be executed in Pondicherry, and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.

---