Cotton duty liability survives non-filing, delay, and sale of the factory; accrued arrears remained recoverable.

A statutory duty under the Cotton Duties Act was treated as assessable and recoverable even where the mill-owner failed to file the prescribed return, because the return was only a mode of assessment and not a condition of liability. In the absence of any express limitation period, accrued arrears could still be collected later, especially where the delay resulted from the assessee's own non-compliance. Liability also did not shift to a purchaser after sale of the factory, since the obligation had already arisen while the plaintiff remained owner. The duty levy was upheld and the refund claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty under the Cotton Duties Act could be assessed and recovered when the mill-owner failed to submit the prescribed return; (ii) whether arrears of duty could be collected after lapse of time in the absence of an express limitation; (iii) whether liability for the duty shifted to the purchaser after the factory was sold.

Issue (i): Whether duty under the Cotton Duties Act could be assessed and recovered when the mill-owner failed to submit the prescribed return.

Analysis: The statutory scheme imposed the duty on cotton goods produced in the mill and required the owner to furnish monthly returns to facilitate assessment. The return was treated as a means of assessment and not as a condition precedent to liability. The Collector's power to assess was not extinguished by the owner's default, especially where the Act also conferred powers of inspection and examination of accounts enabling the duty to be ascertained independently of the return. A defaulting owner could not rely on his own omission to obstruct the working of the Act.

Conclusion: The absence of a return did not prevent assessment or recovery of the duty.

Issue (ii): Whether arrears of duty could be collected after lapse of time in the absence of an express limitation.

Analysis: The Act fixed no time limit for assessment or collection of duty already accrued. Since liability existed and no provision restricted its realisation to a particular period, the duty could be recovered whenever the default was discovered. The monthly basis of assessment was for convenience and did not create an implied bar to later recovery, particularly where delay was caused by the assessee's own failure to comply with the statutory requirements. Analogies drawn from other enactments were held inapposite because those statutes contained different schemes and express temporal limits.

Conclusion: Arrears of duty were recoverable notwithstanding the lapse of time.

Issue (iii): Whether liability for the duty shifted to the purchaser after the factory was sold.

Analysis: The plaintiff was the owner when the statutory obligation to furnish returns arose and when the relevant production took place. He remained the person who derived the benefit from the dutiable goods and could not avoid liability by failing to perform the duty imposed on him while he was owner. The subsequent sale of the factory did not displace the liability already incurred.

Conclusion: Liability remained on the plaintiff and did not pass to the purchaser.

Final Conclusion: The levy of duty was upheld as legally valid, and the refund claim failed. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory duty that is otherwise clearly imposed may be assessed and recovered notwithstanding the assessee's failure to file a return, and in the absence of an express restriction, accrued liability for such duty may be enforced later; a defaulting assessee cannot defeat recovery by his own omission or by a subsequent transfer of the undertaking.

---