https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127170 Prosecution under Section 13 read with Section 15(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act required proof that the accused fell within the class bound by Section 13, namely a registered dealer or licensed person. The Court held that the statutory distinction between a dealer and a registered dealer could not be ignored, and that the use of "dealer" in return and assessment provisions did not dispense with proof of registration for criminal liability. As no evidence established that the accused was a registered dealer, the essential status for the offence was not proved and conviction could not be sustained. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:35:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127170 Prosecution under Section 13 read with Section 15(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act required proof that the accused fell within the class bound by Section 13, namely a registered dealer or licensed person. The Court held that the statutory distinction between a dealer and a registered dealer could not be ignored, and that the use of "dealer" in return and assessment provisions did not dispense with proof of registration for criminal liability. As no evidence established that the accused was a registered dealer, the essential status for the offence was not proved and conviction could not be sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 01 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127170