JUDGMENT This is an appeal against an acquittal by the State. The accused was charged before the Sub-Division Magistrate, Tirupattur, under section 15(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for failure to submit a return required under rule 11(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. The accused was a lessee of a reserve forest during the year 1947-48 and be sold firewood to the Civil Supplies Department during that period. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer called upon the accused to furnish particulars of sales to Civil Supplies Department for the year 1947-48 and the accused replied by Ex. P. 1 that the total amount of firewood supplied was 707 tons and odd and that he was paid after deducting railway freight a sum of Rs. 11,677, It is in respect of this he was prosecuted for not submitting the returned. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had not proved that the accused has received over Rs. 10,000 during this period. He seems to have thought that this letter Ex. P 1 which is in the nature of a confession ought not to be used by the prosecution or relied upon by it to fill up the gaps as he calls them. Now, it is part of the prosecution case that the authorities ascertained the income from the accused himself through Ex. P. 1, and, it is not disputed that it is the accused that sent Ex. P. 1. This statement the confirms part of the prosecution case, and, therefore, on this statement the case of the prosecution that over Rs. 10,000 was received by the accused has been made out. The accused examined a clerk who in his evidence says that the income received was Rs. 15,000 and odd. This only shows that the prosecution case contained in Ex. P. 1, though a statement by the accused, is true. In these circumstances I must hold that the prosecution has proved that the sales by the accused during the year was more than Rs. 10,000 and therefore the accused is liable to submit a return to the Sales Tax Authorities. Another ground on which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused is one relying on the decision in Public Prosecutor v. Kuncham Venkateswarulu ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 216; 1952 M.W.N. Crl. 162). 10,000 and therefore the accused is liable to submit a return to the Sales Tax Authorities. Another ground on which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused is one relying on the decision in Public Prosecutor v. Kuncham Venkateswarulu ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 216; 1952 M.W.N. Crl. 162). That is a case of a prosecution under section 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and not under section 15(a) of the Act. In Crl App. No. 484 of 1953 (Since reported as The Public Prosecutor v. D. Ramaswami [1955] 6 S.T.C. 43), I have considered the decision give in Public Prosecutor v. Kuncham Venkateswarulu ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 216; 1952 M.W.N. Crl. 162), and held that that decision applies only to offences under section 13 of the Act and not for offences under section 15. Section 15 is in general terms and it applies to any person who has to submit a return but does not do so. That is not restricted to only a registered dealer. The two grounds on which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused are unsustainable. His acquittal is therefore set aside. The accused is convicted for not submitting the return and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50, in default to two weeks' rigorous imprisonment. Acquittal set aside.