Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a registered dealer who was not shown to be an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be convicted under section 29(g) for failure to submit monthly returns under section 12-B.
Analysis: Section 10 dealt with registration of dealers, section 12 required returns from specified dealers, and section 29(g) created a penal consequence only for failure to submit the statement required by section 12-B(1). The liability under section 29(g) depended on the statutory requirement under section 12-B(1), which applied to an assessee, namely a dealer whose turnover reached the prescribed threshold. In the absence of any allegation or proof that the petitioner's annual turnover brought him within that category, mere failure to file returns under section 12 did not attract the penal provision. As the statute did not make failure to submit returns under section 12 independently punishable, the conviction could not stand.
Conclusion: The prosecution was not maintainable against the petitioner on the facts found, and the conviction under section 29(g) was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence were set aside, with refund of any fine paid.
Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision must be applied only when all its statutory ingredients are satisfied, and failure to file a return under one provision cannot be punished under another provision unless the legislature has expressly created that offence.