1959 (7) TMI 43 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of the order for arrest and imprisonment as a mode of enforcement of tax and license fee due.
2. Interpretation of Section 19 of the General Sales Tax Act regarding penalties and recovery of amounts due from defaulters.
3. Applicability of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of amounts specified in the Magistrate's order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner was convicted under section 19(b) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act for failing to pay the assessed tax and fine. The trial Court imposed a fine and directed payment of tax and a license fee. The petitioner appealed, and the Sessions Judge reduced the fine but upheld the tax and fee payment. The petitioner's revision petition was unsuccessful, leading to a warrant of arrest for non-payment. The petitioner challenged the legality of the arrest and imprisonment for non-payment, questioning the enforcement method.

2. Section 19 of the General Sales Tax Act outlines offenses and penalties, specifying fines and recoverable amounts. The section distinguishes between fines imposed as penalties and recoverable amounts due from defaulters. The recovery process is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, enabling the court to enforce payment through property attachment or civil process. The section does not authorize imprisonment for non-payment of amounts specified in the Magistrate's order, as it is distinct from fines imposed as penal liabilities. The court clarified that the recovery procedure under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to recover amounts due from defaulters under the Sales Tax Act.

3. The court ruled that Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, which allows imprisonment in default of fine payment, is not applicable to amounts specified for recovery under the Sales Tax Act. Imprisonment can only be imposed for non-payment of fines, not for amounts like tax and license fees. The petitioner's petition was allowed, and the arrest warrant was recalled. The court directed that the petitioner can only be proceeded against following the procedure outlined in Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with limitations explained in the judgment.