1960 (4) TMI 57 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under section 8(1) read with section 24(1) of the Sales Tax Act; Interpretation of section 26(2) regarding limitation period for prosecutions under the Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The respondent was acquitted of an offence under section 8(1) of the Sales Tax Act due to the prosecution not commencing within three months from the date of the offence. The State Government appealed this acquittal, questioning the application of the limitation period prescribed in section 26(2) to prosecutions under section 24 of the Sales Tax Act.

2. The crux of the issue lies in interpreting the scope of "any person" in section 26(2) and whether the omission to register as a dealer falls under "anything done under the Act." The State argued that the provision applies only to government servants, while the respondent contended that it covers dealers as well.

3. The court analyzed the implications of a broad interpretation of "any person," noting that it would render section 24 ineffective due to the practical challenges in initiating prosecutions within the short timeframe. To avoid absurd results, the court concluded that the term "any person" should exclude individuals committing offences under section 24.

4. Further, the court examined the phrase "anything done under the Act" and its applicability to omissions. While acknowledging the broad interpretation of "anything done" to include omissions, the court emphasized that acts directly contravening the Act cannot be considered as done under it, as per precedents and legal principles.

5. Referring to relevant case law, the court reiterated that acts punishable under the Act do not constitute acts done under the Act. In the present case, the offence was carrying on business without registration, which was deemed not to fall under "anything done under the Act," thereby excluding the application of the limitation period in section 26(2).

6. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the offence of carrying on business without registration does not come under the purview of "anything done under the Act," as per the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.

7. Both judges, SHRIVASTAVA T.C. and KHAN A.H., concurred on the decision to allow the appeal, thereby overturning the acquittal and directing the case to be reheard by the Magistrate in accordance with the law.