PTD 1960

1960 PLP 643 (PTD)

N/A

Jurisdiction / Court
Madras (India)
Decided Date
Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 664 to 667 of 1959 decided on 11th February, 1960.
Honorable Judges
Ramaswamy, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1960 PLP 643 (PTD)
Forum / Court Madras (India)
Bench Members Ramaswamy, J
Parties N/A
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1960 PLP 643 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1960 PLP 643 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Madras (India) bench comprising: Ramaswamy, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1960 PLP 643 (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • M. Srinivasagopalan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Sales taxExemptionPerson owning country oil chekku also purchasing and selling oil‑Right to exemption‑[Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939), S. 6‑Notification G. O. No. 1323 Revenue dated 6th May, 1953.] Where the accused was not dealing exclusively in the oils expelled by the country chekku run by him but was purchasing from others and trading on that oil also, he was not entitled to the exemption conferred by Notification G. O. No. 1323, dated 6th May, 1953. [Petitions under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Pro cedure Code, 1898, praying the High Court to revise the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court of Session. Tirunelveli Dn., dated 28th March, 19:9, and made in C A. Nos. 26 to 29 of 1959 respectively C. C. Nos. 29 to 32 of 1959 respectively on the file of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Koilpatti.] M. Narayanamurthi for The Public Prosecutor for the State.

Judgment & Decree

The facts are short. The revision petitioner is an oil‑monger running a country chekku for expelling oil. I need not point out that a country press can be used for extracting oil from ground nuts, gingelly, cocoanuts and caster seeds. On 13th November, 1956, P. W. 1, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer inspected the shop of the accused, and found him dealing in different kinds of oils, and trading in oils by purchasing from others. He recorded the statement, exhibit P. I, wherein the accused admitted that he had purchased oil from others, and that he had been stocking them. So far as C. C. Nos. 29 to 32 of 1959 are concerned, the accused stated that he had purchased cocoanut oil from one Karuppiah Nadar of Sankarankoil. Fifteen tins of ground nut oil, 5 tino of castor oil, tin of gingelly oil and 1 tins of cocoanut oil were found in the shop of the accused. From the statement recorded by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer from the accused, it was seen that the accused had a total turnover of Rs. 31,254‑11‑0 during April, 1952, to March, 1953. The turnover for 1953‑54 was Rs. 24,858‑13‑0 ; the turn over for 1954‑55 was Rs. 22,301‑12‑6 ; and the turnover for 1955‑56 was Rs. 34,04‑3‑

6. Thereupon, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sankaran- koil, took further action, and one set of action related to levying of the escaped assessment which resulted in the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal finally dismissing the appeal of the accused and recovery of the escaped assessment from the accused. The other set of action was tire prosecuting of this accused for offences under section 15 (2) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act read with rule 11 of the Madras General Sales, Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules in that the accused wilfully failed to submit accounts. The case for the accused was that because he has been keeping a country oil press, he is exempted from payment of sales tax, and submission of returns. The Notification G. O. No. 1323, Revenue, dated 6th May, 1953, states: "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act; 1939, (Madras Act IX of 1939), the Governor of Madras hereby exempts permanently with effect from the 1st April, 1953, every person owning or having an interest in country oil chekkus, single or multiple, and dealing exclusively in the produce of such chekkus from pay ment of any tax under section 3(1) of the said Act in respect of such dealings." But the facts here clearly show that the accused was not dealing exclusively in the oils expelled by the chekku run by' him. On the other, hand, he has been purchasing from others and trading on that oil. His turnover also clearly shows `that he could not have been dealing in the very small quantities which alone his country oil press would expel. The convictions are, therefore, correct, and the, sentences are proper. The revisions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.