Pirthi Raj Vs. the State

Pirthi Raj vs The State

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 02, 1957

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/615165

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/615165
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: D. Falshaw, J.
Decided On: Apr 02, 1957
Case Number: Criminal Revn. No. 1439 of 1956
Subject: Other Taxes;Criminal
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Other Taxes;Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Cantonments Act, 1924 - Sections 103(1) and 103(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pirthi Raj

Advocate B.D. Mehra, Adv.

Respondent

The State

Advocate Har Pershad, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Cantonments Act, 1924 - Sections 103(1) and 103(2)
Reported In: AIR1958P& H396; 1958CriLJ1343

Excerpt

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - ..........raj who has been convicted by a magistrate at jullundur under section 103(2) of the. cantonments act and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 75/- or in default two months' simple imprisonment, his appeal being dismissed by the sessions judge.2. the facts of the case are that the accused who keeps a shop in raman mandi, jullundur cantonment, under the title of raman and company, was served with a notice under section 103(1) of the cantonments act by the executive officer, jullundur cantonment board, on 8-12-1955 calling upon him to furnish detailed information within ten days about the value of the goods imported by his firm from the 1st of april to the 30th of september, 1955. a reminder was issued to him on the 22nd of december and the accused then sent the letter (ex. p. b) dated the 24th of december in which he said that octroi duty had been paid on whatever goods he had imported into the cantonment area, and that the record must be in the cantonment board office. he was again told by a notice dated the 29th of december that he must furnish the required information or else would be prosecuted, and he again wrote the letter (ex. p. d) dated 11-1-1956 saying that the information was not available and could be collected from the records of the octroi department and he protested that the notice issued under section 103(1) was illegal.3. the provisions of section 103 of the act are as follows :'(1) the executive officer may, by written notice, call upon any inhabitant of the cantonment to furnish such information as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining --(a) whether such inhabitant is liable to pay any tax imposed under this act;(b) at what amount he should be assessed; or(c) the annual value of the building or land which he occupies and the name and address of the owner or lessee thereof.(2) if any person, when called upon under sub-section (1) to furnish information neglects to furnish it or furnishes information which is not true to the best of his.....

Full Judgment

D. Falshaw, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed by Prithi Raj who has been convicted by a Magistrate at Jullundur under Section 103(2) of the. Cantonments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- or in default two months' simple imprisonment, his appeal being dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

2. The facts of the case are that the accused who keeps a shop in Raman Mandi, Jullundur Cantonment, under the title of Raman and Company, was served with a notice under Section 103(1) of the Cantonments Act by the Executive Officer, Jullundur Cantonment Board, on 8-12-1955 calling upon him to furnish detailed information within ten days about the value of the goods imported by his firm from the 1st of April to the 30th of September, 1955. A reminder was issued to him on the 22nd of December and the accused then sent the letter (Ex. P. B) dated the 24th of December in which he said that octroi duty had been paid on whatever goods he had imported into the Cantonment area, and that the record must be in the Cantonment Board office. He was again told by a notice dated the 29th of December that he must furnish the required information or else would be prosecuted, and he again wrote the letter (Ex. P. D) dated 11-1-1956 saying that the information was not available and could be collected from the records of the octroi department and he protested that the notice issued under Section 103(1) was illegal.

3. The provisions of Section 103 of the Act are as follows :

'(1) The Executive Officer may, by written notice, call upon any inhabitant of the cantonment to furnish such information as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining --

(a) whether such inhabitant is liable to pay any tax imposed under this Act;

(b) at what amount he should be assessed; or

(2) If any person, when called upon under Sub-section (1) to furnish information neglects to furnish it or furnishes information which is not true to the best of his knowledge or belief, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.'

4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the levy of octroi terminal tax and toll is dealt with fully in Sections 81 to 83 of the Act, including the question of punishment for evasion, the taxes referred to in Section 103 cannot include octroi duty, but I cannot accept this proposition since the words used in Section 103(1)(a) are 'any tax imposed under this Act.' It, therefore, seems to me that it it open to the authorities to use this section for the purpose of ascertaining whether there, has been any evasion or attempt to evade the payment of octroi duty by calling on shopkeepers to furnish details of goods imported by them, and the section itself contains provisions for punishment for the offence of either withholding the required information or giving false information.

5. The question, therefore, remains whether the petitioner could be said to have either neglected to furnish the required information or to have furnished false information. The latter offence is not alleged against him, since clearly he merely evaded furnishing the information by refusing to furnish a detailed list of the goods imported by him during the period in question under the pretext that the information was available in the octroi records of the Cantonment Board. On the whole I am of the opinion that the word 'neglect' in this context is wide enough to cover evasion of the kind indulged in by the petitioner. It certainly cannot mean that a person on whom a notice has been served can only be prosecuted if he fails to send any reply at all and that any sort of reply to the notice, however inadequate or 'evasive, is sufficient to avert the prosecution for failure to comply with the terms of the notice. I thus consider that the petitioner has rightly been convicted and dismiss the revision petition.

Same Parties Pirthi Raj vs The State Same Subject Other Taxes;Criminal Same Judge D. Falshaw, J. Acts & Sections Cantonments Act, 1924 - Sections 103(1) and 103(2)

Other Taxes;Criminal