1966 (3) TMI 73 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of acquittal under section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
2. Interpretation of section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii) regarding failure to submit return of turnover and carrying on business without registration.
3. Analysis of the respondent's actions in relation to the provisions of the Act.
4. Examination of the legality of the order of acquittal by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
5. Determination of liability under section 14(1)(c) based on the facts presented.

The judgment pertains to an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent under section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The respondent, a sole proprietor of a firm, applied for registration but failed to furnish the required security, leading to rejection of his application. The respondent continued the business without a registration certificate, contravening section 8-A(1)(a) of the Act. Additionally, he failed to file a proper return of turnover and deposit tax, breaching rule 41(2) of the Act. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate acquitted the respondent, stating that carrying on business pending registration rejection did not violate section 14(1)(c)(ii), and failure to deposit tax did not constitute a failure to submit the return under section 14(1)(c)(i).

The State contended that the acquittal was unjustified, arguing that the respondent should be convicted under both counts. However, the judge analyzed section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii) and concluded that the respondent's actions did not amount to violations. The section requires a failure to submit the return of turnover without reasonable cause or carry on business without registration. As the respondent submitted the turnover return and applied for registration, his actions did not meet the criteria for conviction. The judge clarified that carrying on business pending registration application disposal was permissible, and failure to deposit tax did not equate to a failure to submit the return. Therefore, the respondent's acquittal was affirmed, and the appeal by the State was dismissed.

In summary, the judgment delves into the interpretation of the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, specifically section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii), to determine the respondent's liability. It highlights the legal requirements for conviction under the Act and analyzes the respondent's compliance with those requirements. The judge's decision emphasizes the importance of a thorough examination of the statutory provisions and the specific actions of the accused to establish culpability accurately.