9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the duty can be assessed or collected in the absence of a return made by the proprietor. 2. Whether the Cotton Duties Act provides for the collection of arrears. 3. Whether the liability to pay the duty devolves upon the company which purchased the mill. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Absence of Return by Proprietor: The plaintiff argued that no duty could be assessed or collected without a return made by the proprietor, as required by Section 8 of the Cotton Duties Act. The court examined various sections of the Act, including Sections 6, 8, and 9, and concluded that the Act does not expressly provide for the consequences of failing to submit a return. However, the court found that the Collector has the power to assess the duty payable independently of the return. The court emphasized that the return is intended to facilitate assessment but is not an indispensable prerequisite. The court cited principles from Craies on Statute Law and case law, such as Dutton v. Atkins, to support the view that the absence of a return does not obstruct the operation of the Act. The court held that the Collector could obtain the required information through other means and make the assessment accordingly. 2. Collection of Arrears: The plaintiff contended that the Act does not authorize the collection of arrears, especially over a period of years. The court acknowledged that the Act does not impose any time limit for the collection of duties. The court reasoned that the producer would be aware of the quantity and value of the goods produced and the duty rate, thus negating any argument of inconvenience. The court found that the absence of an express provision limiting the realization of the duty implies that it may be realized at any time after it arises. The court distinguished this case from others, such as Ghulam Mohammed Ali, Prince of Arcot v. Corporation of Madras, and found that the liability to pay duty persists regardless of the time elapsed. 3. Liability of the Vendee: The plaintiff argued that the duty should be payable by the new owner of the factory at the time of assessment. The court held that since the plaintiff was the owner at the time when the return was required and failed to comply, he remained liable for the duty. The court reasoned that the plaintiff, having profited from the goods produced, was properly called upon to pay the duty. Conclusion: The court concluded that the levy of duty was legally valid and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for a refund. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Sundaram Chetty, J., concurred with the judgment.
|
