Transporter liability for tax evasion penalties upheld where statutory duties and composition provisions extend beyond registered dealers.

A transporter, even if not a dealer under the fiscal statute, may be subjected to penal consequences where the statutory scheme imposes duties to maintain accounts, furnish information and produce prescribed forms to prevent tax evasion. The expression "whoever" in the penal provision was treated as broad enough to include non-dealers, and the composition mechanism was viewed as an ancillary device to penalise and deter conduct connected with evasion, not as a charging provision or as converting the transporter into a dealer. The Court also noted that whether the petitioners had in fact opted for composition was a disputed factual question unsuitable for writ determination, and the impugned demands were not without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transporter, though not a dealer under the fiscal statute, can be subjected to penal consequences and composition under the provisions aimed at preventing tax evasion, and whether the impugned demands were without authority of law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme imposed obligations on transporters to maintain accounts, furnish information, and produce prescribed forms so that the taxing authority could trace the dealer and prevent evasion. The penal provisions using the expression "whoever" were held wide enough to include non-dealers, and the composition provision was read as applying to offences committed by a transporter who facilitated evasion or violated statutory duties. The composition mechanism did not create a charging provision against the transporter or convert him into a dealer; it operated as an ancillary device to penalise and deter conduct connected with tax evasion. The Court also noted that whether the petitioners had actually opted for composition was a disputed question of fact not fit for determination in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The transporter could validly be proceeded against under the penal and composition provisions, and the impugned demands were not without jurisdiction.

---