9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bably what was meant was that the State would not press for conviction and sentence of the respondent. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases. Appeals preferred by the State of Mysore against the orders of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent were rejected by the High Court on the ground that as the State could avail itself of other remedies under the Act for enforcing the payment of tax levied on the respondent it did not think it fit to exercise its discretion under section 421(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and entertain the appeals. Mr. Chaudhury refers to the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 13 and contends that unless the requirements of the proviso are satisfied the respondent is not liable to be proceeded against under section 29(1)(d). In order to appreciate his argument it is desirable to reproduce the provision relied upon by him. Sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in effect wants us to construe the proviso as if it contemplated the creation of liability to pay the tax by an order of the appropriate authority under one of the sections specified in the proviso. There is no warrant for such a construction. The liability to pay tax is created by the order of assessment. Where tax so assessed is not paid despite service of notice of demand the substantive portion of sub-section (3) of section 13 renders the assessee liable to be proceeded against under clause (a) or clause (b) of that provision. The assessee who has moved the appropriate authority under one of the provisions referred to in the proviso has, however, been afforded interim protection from action under clause (a) or clause (b) provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt security to its satisfaction in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed." The provision we have just quoted is a complete answer to Mr. Chaudhury's contention. Mr. Chaudhury then contended that there was no wilful default on the part of the respondent. It is difficult to appreciate what he means by saying that there was no wilful default. The respondent knew that he was required to pay the tax within certain time and also knew that he had not complied with the notice of demand. His action in not paying the tax was quite clearly deliberate and, therefore, wilful. There is no substance in this contention. We are, therefore, clear that the acquittal of the appellant for offences he was charged with was unwarranted. We would, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
