THE STATE OF MYSORE versus SHANTA VEERAPPA CHANNA MALLAPPA BOMMANAHALLI & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 04-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
, 
A 
B 
THE STATE OF MYSORE 
v. 
SHANTA VEERAPPA CHANNA MALLAPPA 
BOMMANAHALLI & ORS. 
March 4, 1966 
(A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Mysoro Sales Tax Act (25 of 1957), ss. 13(3) and 29(l)(d)-Asst3Ut 
filing appeal against order of as•essment-No interim stay of proceedings 
for recovery of tax-Prosecution for non-payment of tax-Ma/ntainabi-
C 
lity. 
The respondent was assessed to sales tax and w .. served with a notice 
requiring him to pay the amount within 21 days. He preferred an appeal 
against the order of assessment but did not pay the tax, nor did he 
obtain an order of stay of proceedings from the appellate authority. 
While the appeal w.. pending, a complaint was filed against him under 
s. 29(1)(d) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, because the demand 
D 
was not complied with, but the trial court and the High Court acquitted 
him. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In appeal to this Court by the State, 
HELD : The acquittal of the respondent was 
unwarranted as his 
action in not paying the tax within the time allowed, was deliberate and 
therefore wilful, and such failure to pay is rendered an offence under s. 
29(l)(d). [814 D, El 
The liability to pay tax is created by the order of assessment. Where 
the tax so assessed is not paid despite service of notice of demand, the 
tax may be recovered under s. 13 ( 3) (a~ .. an arrear of land reyenue 
or. under s. 13 ( 3 )(b) on an application to a magistrate as if it were a fine 
impooed on the assessee. 
Under the proviso to s. 13(3), the assessee 
has been afforded interim protection from action under s. 13(3)(a) or (b), 
provided he obtains from the appropriate appellate or revisional autho-
rity mentioned in the proviso, an order of stay of proceedings. 
Merely 
because an appeal h.. been preferred, the liability of the assessee to 
pay the tax cannot be deemed to be suspended under s. 
20(5). Thi• 
provision requires that if the order of such appropriate authority lays 
down any condition, the proviso requires that the assessee must comply with 
it before he can obtain interim relief. Apart from these two methods of 
obtaining interim relief, the proviso to s. 13(3) cannot be an answer to a 
prosecution under s. 29(l)(d). [813 E-G] 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeals 
Nos. 150-152 of 1965. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 17, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeals 
Nos. 93 to 95 of 1965. 
B. R. L. Iyengar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant. 
K. R. Choudhury, for the respondents. 
811 
812 
SUPll.EME COUll.T REPORTS 
[1966] 3 S.C.R. 
The J udgmcnt of the Court was delivered by 
Modbolkar, J. This judgment will also govern Criminal Ap-
peals Nos. 151and152of1965. The respondent was at the relevant 
time a dealer at Bijapur in groundnuts, cotton seed and other 
commodities and was registered as a dealer under the Mysore 
Sales Tax Act, 1957. 
For the period between November 12, 1958 
and October 31, 1959 he was assessed to sales tax amounting to 
Rs. 9,864·31 ps. by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bijapur in 
his order dated December 4, 1963. On January 3, 1964 the Com-
mercial Tax Officer served on him a notice of payment requiring 
him to pay the tax assessed on him within 21 days. 
He was simi-
larly assessed to pay tax for two subsequent periods by two separate 
orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Two separate notices 
of demand were served on him requiring him to pay the tax assessed 
within 21 days. 
ll is common ground that the respondent did 
not comply with any of the three notices. Three separate complaints 
were, therefore, preferred against him by the Commercial Tax 
Officer before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, second court, 
Bijapur for offences punishable under s. 29(1)(d) of the Act. The 
respondent had preferred appeals against each of the three orders 
of assessment under sub-s. (I) of s. 20 of the Act. He did not, 
however, pay the tax assessed against him or any portion thereof 
as contemplated in the second proviso of sub-s. (1) of s. 20 nor 
did he seek or obtain from the appellate authority any order under 
the proviso to sub-s. (5) of s. 20. The learned Magistrate held 
that since the respondent had preferred appeals against the orders 
of assessment and those appeals were still pending when the comp-
laints were made before him the respondent was not liable for 
offences under s. 29 (I) (d). On this ground the learned Magistrate 
acquitted the r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.