TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1952 (9) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/51 1,579 5 10 1946-47 Rs. 200 fine 2 89/52 107/51 501 6 0 1945-46 Rs. 50 fine on admission 3 90/52 104/51 931 13 4 " Rs. 300 fine 4 91/52 98/51 144 0 0 " Rs. 30 fine on admission. 5 92/52 96/51 367 4 0 " Rs. 100 fine 6 93/52 92/51 1,750 0 0 1946-47 Rs. 150 fine 7 94/52 90/51 1,612 12 2 " Rs. 400 fine 8 95/52 84/51 2,639 13 6 " Rs. 300 fine 9 96/52 72/51 1,507 14 5 1947-48 Rs. 80 fine, balance of 679 14 8 tax Rs. 827 15 9 827 15 9 directed to be paid. 10 97/52 68/51 896 7 9 1947-48 Rs. 100 fine 11 99/52 162/51 346 2 4 1945-46 Rs. 50 fine on admission 12 100/52 157/51 1,746 6 0 1947-48 Rs. 140 fine, balance of 1,219 14 6 tax Rs. 526 7 6 to be paid. 13 101/52 156/51 1,273 1 8 1946-47 Rs. 130 fine 14 102/52 155/51 582 4 0 1945-46 Rs. 60 fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... There can be no doubt that under Section 10 of the said Act the tax assessed has got to be paid in such manner and in such instalments, if any, and within such time as may be specified in the notice of assessment and that if there is failure to pay within the time allowed any tax assessed on the assessee under the Act and he is prosecuted for an offence under Section 15, that assessee on conviction is liable to pay a fine and in case of a conviction under clause (b) of Section 15 the Magistrate shall specify in the order the tax which the person convicted has failed to pay and the tax so specified shall be recoverable as if it were a fine. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor that in all these cases the defaulted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when the tax is made recoverable as a fine it imposes a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted before the Act was amended. In advancing this argu- ment it is overlooked that any change in the mode of execution is not bad for its being ex post facto: see Holden v. Minnesota(1) and Rooney v. North Dakota(2). A statute merely regulating procedure and leaving untouched all the substantial protection with which existing law surrounds a person accused of crime is not within the constitutional inhibi- tion of ex post facto laws: Thompson v. Utah(3) and Winston v. State(4). Even a statute which changes the punishment that may be imposed for a crime theretofor committed would be ex post facto only if it prescribes or permits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdinary debt. Suit for taxes is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act: See Larkana Municipality v. Kaloomal Ponoomal(2); Masand Motiram v. Shekarpur Municipality(3); Mathura Prasad v. Special Officer, Gaya Municipality(4); Dipinarain v. A.D.M.(5); President of the Guntur Municipal Commission v. S. Padma- raju(6); Rajah of Vijianagaram v. Tammanna(7); Attakoya v. Kunhikoya(8); Ut Badrunnissa v. Municipal Board, Agra.(9) Thirdly, the tax can after 1-1-1948 be recovered also as fine by a Magistrate on conviction under Section 15(b) or 15(d) of the Act. The recovery of the tax as if it were a fine does not impose a greater penalty than the other two modes. Even though tax collectable as arrear of land revenue may not be a first charge, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 21 and sale of immovable property, by Sections 25 to 35 regulating attachment, and by Sections 36 to 47 regulating sale; and in regard to the procedure for arrest this is governed by Sections 48 and 49. I do not see how the recovery of the tax as if it were a fine would be a greater penalty because it is open to the Court, in deserving cases, not to prescribe default sentences and the realization of the fine otherwise than by default sentence of imprisonment is regulated by Rule 290A of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which is certainly far less onerous than the corres- ponding provisions under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. In such cases if steps taken in regard to the sale of movables fail, the fine can even be written off. Therefore....