Finality of municipal tax demand bars collateral challenge to liability in prosecution for non-payment.

Where a municipal taxing statute provides a complete machinery for objection, revision and appeal, failure to use that procedure renders the assessment and demand final, and the assessee cannot later raise non-liability as a defence in a prosecution for default. The text also notes that, once the accused was duly classified and served with notice and the statutory challenge process was not invoked, the Magistrate was not required to independently re-examine the plea that the accused had not exercised the relevant profession for the requisite period. The statutory finality of the demand therefore controlled the prosecution for non-payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to complain or seek revision under the municipal tax provisions made the assessment and demand final so that non-liability could not be raised as a defence in prosecution under Section 125; (ii) Whether the Magistrate was required to independently enquire into the accused's plea that he had not exercised a profession for the requisite period.

Issue (i): Whether failure to complain or seek revision under the municipal tax provisions made the assessment and demand final so that non-liability could not be raised as a defence in prosecution under Section 125.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act vested cognizance of complaints against tax demands and applications for revision in the prescribed municipal authorities, provided for appeal and reference, and declared the assessment, revision, or demand final where no complaint or objection was made within time. The later Act was treated as enlarging and strengthening the finality attached to the original demand, and the omission of limiting language found in the earlier enactment supported a broader bar against reopening liability in collateral proceedings.

Conclusion: Failure to invoke the statutory complaint and revision machinery rendered the tax demand final, and the plea of non-liability could not be raised as a defence in the prosecution.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate was required to independently enquire into the accused's plea that he had not exercised a profession for the requisite period.

Analysis: The accused had been duly classified and served with notice, and the statutory framework treated the available objections to liability as matters to be raised within the prescribed administrative process. Once that process was not used, the Magistrate was not obliged to retry the question of liability in the prosecution for default in payment.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was not required to investigate the plea of non-exercise of profession in the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld because the statutory assessment and demand had become conclusive in the absence of a timely challenge, and the petition challenging the conviction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a municipal taxing statute provides a complete procedure for objection, revision, appeal, and finality, failure to use that procedure bars the assessee from disputing liability collaterally in a later prosecution for non-payment.

---