Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the recovery of sales tax arrears under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (Malayalam Era). The State of Kerala and the Tahsildars of Kottayam and Kanjirappally Taluks were the appellants, while the respondent was C. M. Francis & Co., a partnership firm dealing in hill produce such as pepper, ginger and betelnuts, along with its partners. The firm was assessed to sales tax for the years 1950 to 1954, with a total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,01,716-4-3. In 1954, the State initiated recovery proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, which permitted recovery of tax arrears as if they were arrears of land revenue. These proceedings proved unsuccessful. Subsequently, a prosecution was launched under Section 19 of the Act against the partners in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Ponkunnam. The partners pleaded guilty, and on October 18, 1955, the Magistrate sentenced each to a fine of Rs. 50 and directed that the outstanding tax amount be realized from them as if it were a fine imposed by the court, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Warrants under Section 386(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were issued to the Collector of Kottayam District for recovery. Despite this, the authorities again initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Act read with the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, and attached certain properties belonging to the respondents. The firm then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Kerala High Court, seeking a writ of prohibition to quash the revenue recovery proceedings. They contended that after the prosecution under Section 19 and the issuance of warrants under Section 386 CrPC, the procedure under Section 13 was no longer available. The High Court accepted this argument, holding that Section 19, being a special provision, prevailed over the general provision of Section 13, and granted the writ of prohibition on November 18, 1957. The State appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court examined the two sections. Section 13 provided for recovery of tax as arrears of land revenue, while Section 19 provided for prosecution and, upon conviction, specified the tax to be recoverable as if it were a fine under the CrPC. The Court observed that both sections laid down modes for recovery of arrears of tax and both led to recovery through attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties. It rejected the distinction between general and special provisions, noting that Section 19 additionally conferred the power to convict and sentence the offender. Relying on the principle stated by Mahmood, J. in Shankar Sahai v. Din Dial, the Court held that where the law provides two or more remedies, one does not debar the other unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes one. Since the Act contained no such exclusion, both remedies remained open to the authorities, who could resort to any one of them at their option. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed the respondents to pay costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court, even though they had not appeared before the Supreme Court.
Headnote
A) Sales Tax Law - Recovery of Tax Arrears - Sections 13 and 19 of Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (M.E.) - Both remedies for recovery of sales tax arrears—as arrears of land revenue under Section 13 and as criminal fine under Section 19 read with Section 386(1)(b) CrPC—are concurrent and not mutually exclusive; neither is destructive of the other; authorities may resort to any one at their option - Held that where statute provides two or more remedies, both must be understood to remain open unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded (Paras Not mentioned). B) Interpretation of Statutes - Doctrine of Exclusion of Remedies - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 386(1)(b); Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951 - High Court erred in holding that special procedure under Section 19 prevails over general Section 13; both proceedings lead to similar recovery processes (attachment and sale of movable and immovable property); no statutory exclusion exists - Held that principle in Shankar Sahai v. Din Dial applies; both remedies remain open to the authority (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 19 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act prevails over Section 13, so that after prosecution and recovery warrants under Section 19 read with Section 386(1)(b) CrPC, the State is barred from resorting to revenue recovery under Section 13 read with Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act for the same arrears
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court, and held that both remedies under Sections 13 and 19 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act are not destructive of each other. The authorities may resort to any one of them at their option. The respondents were ordered to pay costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Law Points
- Where statute provides two or more remedies for recovery
- both remain open unless one is expressly or impliedly excluded
- Section 13 and Section 19 of Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act are not mutually exclusive
- Proceedings under Section 19 do not bar subsequent revenue recovery under Section 13
- Authorities may resort to any one remedy at their option
- Recovery under Section 386(1)(b) CrPC as fine does not destroy revenue recovery remedy
