9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (7) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly submitted; but with respect to the wholesale business no return was submitted for the above months. This was discovered by the Commercial Tax Authorities. The fact of the failure to submit the return is not disputed. The accused who examined himself as a witness admits that with respect to the wholesale sales he did not submit the return because he was under the impression that for the wholesale sales it will be enough if he submitted the return at the end of the year. There is thus no dispute about the fact that for the period in question, namely, April, May and June, 1954, no return has been submitted by the appellant in respect of the wholesale sales. The facts thus not being disputed and the plea being that he was under a bona fid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a decision of Subba Rao, J. I may at once state that the two decisions of this court refer to the deci- sions relied on by the Government Pleader and therefore it is unneces- sary for me to refer to all the decisions in detail. As pointed out by Govinda Menon, J., at page 32, "The word 'wilfully' has been inserted in section 15 to exclude cases of inadvertence or mistake but not cases where the omission was due to a wrong view of the law or ignorance of law." Then after referring to Queen v. Senior[1899] 1 Q.B. 283., the learned Judge states as follows: "His Lordship took the view that if the act was done deliberately and intentionally and not by accident or inadvertence, even if the act was bona fide, it amounted to a crime in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubba Rao, J., does not in terms agree with the view ex- pressed by Govinda Menon, J., still as pointed out by Govinda Menon, J., what really the section contemplates is the exclusion of cases of inadvertence or mistake but not cases where the omission was due to a wrong view of the law or ignorance of the law. In the present case the appellant himself concedes that he had to submit a return but that, in his view, the submission of the return at the end of the year would be sufficient. This is due to a wrong view of the law on the part of the appellant. There is no doubt, therefore, that the appellant intentionally excluded the wholesale sales in his return for the months of April, May and June. He is, therefore, guilty of wilfully submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
