Tax arrears recovery as fine under special statute is not capped by Magistrate's fine jurisdiction, but territorial competence still matters.

A Magistrate acting under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could recover tax arrears as if they were a fine, and the recovery was not limited by the Magistrate's maximum fine power under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure for recovery remained attachment and sale under the criminal procedure provisions, so the objection based on the amount exceeding fine jurisdiction failed. However, a recovery application could not properly proceed without showing property within territorial jurisdiction; where the defaulter resided outside the magistrate's area and no attachable property was identified, the application was rightly declined. The petitioner was left free to file a fresh application before the competent Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate acting under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could recover sales tax arrears even if the amount exceeded the maximum fine he was competent to impose under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the application for recovery could be rejected on the ground that the defaulter was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate acting under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could recover sales tax arrears even if the amount exceeded the maximum fine he was competent to impose under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory power under section 13(3)(b) authorises the Magistrate to recover the tax due as if it were a fine imposed by him, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The recovery mechanism is the procedure for recovery of fine under sections 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely attachment and sale of property. The Magistrate's power to levy fine under section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not limit the amount recoverable under the sales tax recovery provision.

Conclusion: The objection based on the amount exceeding the Magistrate's fine jurisdiction was rejected, and the recovery power under the Act was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the application for recovery could be rejected on the ground that the defaulter was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Analysis: No specific property sought to be attached and sold was disclosed in the application, and on the material available the proper course was to approach the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the defaulter was residing or within whose jurisdiction the property sought to be attached and sold was situated. In these circumstances, the Magistrate committed no error in declining to entertain the application.

Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, and the petitioner was left at liberty to make a fresh application in accordance with law before the appropriate Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate authorised under a special tax recovery provision may recover the tax due as if it were a fine by applying the criminal procedure for recovery of fine, and the recovery application must be presented before the competent territorial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the person or the property sought to be attached.

---