Assessment machinery and tax liability: absence of the Collector barred penal non-filing action, but the cess charge survived.

Under a taxing statute that creates the charge on the taxable event, the absence of the appointed assessment machinery may bar penal action for failure to file returns, but it does not extinguish the underlying cess liability. The duty to furnish monthly returns under Section 8 runs to the Collector, and until that authority exists, the specific machinery for receipt of returns and assessment cannot operate; the residual provision in Section 15(2) cannot substitute for that machinery. However, once the Collector is appointed, returns for the antecedent period may be required and assessed, so the substantive liability to cess remains intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could be prosecuted for failure to furnish monthly returns and comply with the assessment machinery during the period when no Collector had been appointed under the Produce Cess Act, 1966; (ii) Whether the delay in appointing the Collector and appellate authority relieved the appellant from liability to cess for the relevant period.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could be prosecuted for failure to furnish monthly returns and comply with the assessment machinery during the period when no Collector had been appointed under the Produce Cess Act, 1966.

Analysis: The statutory obligation to furnish monthly returns under Section 8 runs to the Collector defined in Section 2(a). Until a Collector appointed under the Act exists, the prescribed machinery for receipt of returns and initiation of assessment proceedings cannot operate. Section 15(2) is only a residual provision and cannot be used as a substitute for the specific machinery created by the Act. Accordingly, non-compliance with Section 8 during the period when no Collector had been appointed could not found penal proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to prosecution for failure to furnish monthly returns during the period before appointment of the Collector.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in appointing the Collector and appellate authority relieved the appellant from liability to cess for the relevant period.

Analysis: The levy under Section 3(2) comes into existence on the taxable event, while the appointment of the Collector and appellate authority is part of the machinery for assessment and recovery. The absence of those authorities may prevent immediate assessment or penal action for non-filing, but it does not extinguish the substantive liability to cess. Once the Collector is appointed, returns for the entire antecedent period may be required and assessed according to the Act.

Conclusion: The appellant remained liable to cess for the period during which the Collector was not appointed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent that penal action for non-filing of returns during the no-Collector period could not be sustained, but the substantive liability to cess was upheld and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute creates the charge itself, the absence of the appointed assessment machinery may bar penal proceedings for procedural default, but it does not negate the underlying tax liability once the taxable event has occurred.

---