Broad limitation under sales tax law applies to any person, and false returns remain acts done under the Act.

Section 26(2) of the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Act was construed broadly to cover prosecutions against any person, including a dealer who was not a Government servant. Returns filed under section 10 and accounts produced under section 15 were treated as acts done under the Act, and they did not lose that character merely because they were alleged to be false or incorrect. On that basis, the three-month limitation in section 26(2) applied and barred the prosecution instituted after that period, leading to quashing of the criminal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the limitation in section 26(2) of the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Act applied to a prosecution against any person, including a dealer who was not a Government servant. (ii) Whether filing returns and producing accounts under sections 10 and 15 of the Act were acts done under the Act so as to attract section 26(2).

Issue (i): Whether the limitation in section 26(2) of the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Act applied to a prosecution against any person, including a dealer who was not a Government servant.

Analysis: The language of section 26(2) was held to be wider than section 26(1). The expression "any person" was not confined to Government servants, and no restrictive words were found in the sub-section to exclude dealers or other non-official persons from its scope.

Conclusion: Section 26(2) applied to prosecutions against any person, including the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether filing returns and producing accounts under sections 10 and 15 of the Act were acts done under the Act so as to attract section 26(2).

Analysis: Returns were furnished under section 10 and accounts were produced under section 15. Those acts were therefore done under the Act, and they could not be treated as wholly outside the statutory framework merely because the returns or accounts were alleged to be false or incorrect.

Conclusion: The acts complained of were done under the Act and section 26(2) barred the prosecution as it was instituted beyond three months.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings was set aside and the criminal proceedings against the appellants were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A limitation provision using the phrase "any person" in a penal or protective statute is of broad application, and acts required to be performed under the statute do not cease to be acts done under it merely because they are alleged to be false or incorrect.

---