TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1956 (9) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....years. These demands were in accordance with section 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The respondent did not make payments within the time allowed. Later on, notices were served on him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. No adequate cause having been shown, complaints were filed in court. In the trial court, evidence was led to show that the respondent had been assessed in both the years and had not paid the amounts of tax due within the time allowed to him under section 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In spite of these findings, the learned Magistrate, who tried the cases, acquitted the respondent after expressing the view that the offence would be comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ass[1952] A.L.J. 152. such failure must mean not an unintentional failure or a failure by inadvertence but a deliberate failure, where the mind has been brought into play and a man has, after taking the facts into consideration, refused to make the payment. In that case, the word "wilful" was interpreted with reference to the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The word used in the U.P. Sales Tax Act is also "wilful" and, in our opinion, carries the same meaning. In this case, the evidence given by the prosecution shows that the default in payment by the respondent was not by inadvertence but was a deliberate failure. He had been given notice to make the payment and he did not pay it. Even when notices were given to him to sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Learned counsel for the respondent referred us to a decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in In re Guruviah Naidu & Co. [1954] 5 S.T.C. 129; A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 833. Having gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court and having heard learned counsel for the respondent, we find that the principles laid down in that case are not applicable to the case before us at all. The point that arose in that case was whether section 16A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, which barred a defence by an accused on the ground of the validity or correctness of the assessment under which the payment was demanded from him was valid or invalid. It was held that section 16A of the Madras....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both these appeals. Learned counsel urged that the U.P. Sales Tax Act was a self-contained Act and it made no provision for an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal for an offence punishable under section 14(b) of the Act so that these appeals were incompetent and could not be entertained by this Court. This argument completely ignores the fact that section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act merely constitutes an offence and makes it punishable and does not prescribe the procedure for the trial of that offence. The offence created by section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is an offence as defined in section 4(1)(o) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, to the trial of an accused for an offence under section 14(b) of the U....