Bona fide inability to comply with return-filing requirements can defeat conviction where deliberate default is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Karnataka HC found that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dealer deliberately failed to file the monthly statement in Form No. 3 under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Rules. The defence that jurisdiction had been transferred without notice, that returns had earlier been filed at the previous circle, and that compliance was attempted after notice made the accused's explanation probable. As the record supported bona fide difficulty in filing and the prosecution witness admitted no intimation of the transfer, the alleged non-compliance was not established to the criminal standard. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner failed to submit the monthly statement in Form No. 3 as required by section 12-B(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with rule 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, so as to sustain conviction under section 29(1)(g) of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required every dealer to furnish the prescribed monthly statement in Form No. 3 within the stipulated time. The defence was that the petitioner had been filing returns at the earlier circle, had not been informed of the transfer of jurisdiction to the 33rd circle, and had continued to attempt compliance after receiving notice from that circle. The evidence showed that the change of jurisdiction had not been communicated to the petitioner, while the prosecution witness admitted the absence of such intimation. The record also indicated that returns had been accepted for a period even after the transfer, which supported the plea that the petitioner was unaware of the correct office for filing. These circumstances made the defence version probable and created reasonable doubt about a deliberate or culpable failure to comply.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish the alleged non-compliance beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revision petitions succeeded, the petitioner was acquitted, and the conviction under the sales tax offence provision was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused's defence of bona fide inability to comply with a return-filing requirement is supported by surrounding circumstances and the prosecution fails to prove deliberate default beyond reasonable doubt, conviction for the statutory offence cannot be sustained.

---