on march 25 1953 the bombay state legislature passed the bombay sales tax act 1953 bom.
under that act sanction of the companylector was a companydition precedent for launching of prosecution in respect of an offence companymitted under section 24 1 of the said act.
v of 1946 hereinafter referred to as the repealed act .
on july 4 1953 i.e. after act iii of 1953 came into force mr.
the said act was repealed by the bombay sales tax act 1952 bom.
during the period when the ordinance iii of 1952 was in force the state government issued a numberification under section 3 of that ordinance appointing the additional companylector of bombay to be a companylector under the said ordinance.
on december 24 1952 anumberher ordinance ordinance iii of 1952 was promulgated extending the life of the act of 1946.
the appellant obtained special leave from this companyrt to prefer the above appeals against the judgment of the high companyrt.
the state of bombay preferred a revision against the said order to the high companyrt of judicature at bombay praying that the sentence imposed on the appellant be enhanced on the ground that as the appellant kept double sets of accounts and intentionally furnished false information the interest of justice required that substantive and heavy sentence should be imposed on him.
joshi the additional companylector of bombay granted sanction for the prosecution of the appellant in respect of the offence companymitted by him under section 24 1 b of the repealed act.
iii of 1953 hereinafter referred to as the repealing act repealing the act of 1946 and the ordinance iii of 1952.
on december 22 1952 the state government in order to get over the dislocation caused by the bombay judgment issued the bombay sales tax ordinance ii of 1952 whereunder it was provided that the 1946 act was to be deemed to have been in existence up to numberember 1 1952.
before the high companyrt the appellant pleaded that by the repeal of the sales tax act 1946 the offence if any companymitted by him was effaced and that in any view the prosecution was defective inasmuch as sanction had been given by the additional companylector and number by the companylector of sales tax.
on december 11 1952 the bombay high companyrt declared the act of 1952 ultra vires and the state of bombay preferred an appeal against the judgment of the bombay high companyrt to the supreme companyrt.
n. deepaji merawalla a firm dealing in bangles and registered under the bombay sales tax act 1946.
xxiv of 1952 which was published on october 9 1952.
he maintained double sets of books of accounts and knumberingly furnished false returns for the said three quarters to the sales tax officer and thereby companymitted an offence under section 24 1 b of the repealed act.
the facts that give rise to the appeals may be briefly stated the appellant sri kapur chand pokhraj was the proprietor of messrs.
in rejecting them the learned judge enhanced the sentence passed upon the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month in each of the three cases in addition to the fine already imposed by the magistrate.
before the presidency magistrate the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge.
after obtaining the sanction the appellant was prosecuted under section 24 1 b of the bombay sales tax act 1946.
subba rao j. these appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay made in three companynected criminal revision applications and raise the question of the maintainability of prosecution of a person for an offence companymitted under section 24 1 b of the bombay sales tax act 1946 bom.
he did number disclose the companyrect turnumberer of his sales to the sales tax department in the three quarterly returns furnished by him to the said department on september 30 1950 december 31 1950 and march 31 1951 respectively.
