1966 (5) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the prosecution against the respondent was barred by time under section 26(2) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act.
2. Whether carrying on business without registration constitutes an act done under the Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was against the acquittal of the respondent on the grounds of the prosecution being barred by time under section 26(2) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, a forest contractor dealing in timber, charcoal, and firewood, exceeded the turnover limit without registering as a dealer between 1947 and 1950. The Magistrate held the prosecution barred by time as per section 26(2) of the Act.

2. The contention was raised regarding the interpretation of section 26(2) of the Act, specifically whether the provision applies to any person or only servants of the Government. The court referred to a previous decision and concluded that the time limit of three months under section 26(2) applies to every prosecution under section 24(1) of the Act, regardless of the accused's status.

3. The key issue was whether carrying on business without registration constitutes an act done under the Act. The prosecution argued that such an act is not done under the Act as there is no provision for carrying on business in accordance with the Act. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that section 8 mandates registration before carrying on business, and a violation is punishable under section 24(1)(a), making it an act done under the Act.

4. Referring to a previous case, the court reiterated that acts like submitting returns and producing accounts under the Act were considered acts done under the Act. Applying the same principle, the court held that a dealer's omission to register is something "done" under the Act, making the prosecution in this case rightly barred by time under section 26(2).

5. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision that the prosecution was barred by time due to the omission of the dealer to register, which was considered an act done under the Act.