Criminal liability for unpaid sales tax depends on deliberate non-payment without reasonable cause, not reassessment of tax orders.

In a prosecution for failure to pay sales tax within time, the criminal court cannot reopen the assessment where the statute provides a final mechanism for challenging assessment orders; objections to the tax liability must be pursued under the Act, and the court may only consider whether the taxing provision itself is ultra vires. Criminal liability under the offence provision arises only if the prosecution proves a deliberate non-payment without reasonable cause. On the facts discussed, the dealer's property was already attached and there was no evidence of other means to pay, so the failure to pay was not shown to be without reasonable cause and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the criminal court could go behind the assessment orders and examine the validity of the tax assessments in a prosecution under section 46(1)(c) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958; and (ii) whether the respondent's failure to pay the tax within the time allowed was without reasonable cause so as to attract criminal liability.

Issue (i): whether the criminal court could go behind the assessment orders and examine the validity of the tax assessments in a prosecution under section 46(1)(c) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.

Analysis: Section 37 of the Act bars a challenge to assessment orders and to liability to pay tax except in the manner provided by the Act. The assessment machinery under the statute is intended to decide such questions finally, and objections that could have been raised before the tax authorities cannot be re-agitated in the criminal prosecution. The criminal court may examine only whether the statutory provision itself is ultra vires, not whether the assessment was correctly made on facts or law within the jurisdiction of the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The validity of the assessment orders could not be examined in these criminal appeals.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent's failure to pay the tax within the time allowed was without reasonable cause so as to attract criminal liability.

Analysis: The offence under section 46(1)(c) is committed only when a dealer without reasonable cause fails to pay the tax due within the time allowed. Mens rea is an essential ingredient unless excluded by statute, and the Act does not exclude it. On the facts, the respondent's house stood attached, he was restrained from dealing with that property, the authorities had an existing avenue of recovery, and there was no evidence that he had other means to pay the dues. In these circumstances, the trial court's view that the non-payment was not shown to be deliberate or without reasonable cause was a reasonable one.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish that the respondent deliberately failed to pay the tax without reasonable cause.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be interfered with and the State's appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for failure to pay sales tax within time, the criminal court cannot reopen the assessment itself where the statute provides a final assessment mechanism, and criminal liability arises only if the prosecution proves a deliberate failure to pay without reasonable cause.

---