Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal. The respondent was charged for an offence under S.19 (b) of the General Sales Tax Act (Act XI of 1125) for non-payment of Sales Tax amounting to Rs. 610/- for the year 1959-60. The order of assessment was made on 9-12-1960 and notice of demand was served and accepted by the accused on 20-2-1961. He was asked to make the payment within 21 days and as he failed to do so the complaint was filed on 11-8-1961. 2. The service of the notice and the non-payment of the amount are not in dispute and are proved. 3. The order of acquittal is based on the sole ground that due to the pendency of an appeal by the assessee questioning the validity of the assessment, the liability to pay the tax has not been finally adjudicated and as such the accused has not incurred criminal liability. 4. It is argued by the learned State Prosecutor that, the fact the assessee has got a right of appeal or that he has exercised that right does not in any way affect the fact that he has already committed an offence when the tax assessed was not paid within the time specified. 5. I think the contention should prevail. S.19 (b) penalises the failure to pay within the time allowed any tax assessed on a person. That provision is evidently intended to expedite collection of tax by a criminal prosecution. There is nothing in the Section or the Act to warrant the inference that the officers concerned are to wait for the assessee to exhaust his remedies in challenging the correctness of the assessment to take action under the section. That would defeat the very purpose of the section by causing enormous delay in the collection of the taxes. The pendency of the appeal has also no bearing on the criminal liability as the learned Magistrate seems to think. According to the section an offence is committed whenever a person wilfully fails to pay the tax due from him under the Act within the time allowed. The section does not require that the failure to make the payment must be dishonest or mala fide. All that is needed is a wilful or deliberate failure as distinguished from an unintentional or inadvertent failure. The section does not require that the failure to make the payment must be dishonest or mala fide. All that is needed is a wilful or deliberate failure as distinguished from an unintentional or inadvertent failure. In Public Prosecutor v. K. Sesha Shet (1953) 4 STC. 294, while dealing with a similar prosecution under S.15 (b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939 the Madras High Court held: "Under S.15 (b) when any person fails to pay within the time allowed any tax assessed on him by the assessing authority viz., Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, then the offence has been committed and he can be prosecuted. There is no need for the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to wait for the assessee to exhaust all his remedies by way of appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer and the Sales Tax Tribunal. The same was the position taken by the Allahabad High Court in State v. Awtar Krishna (1957) 8 STC. 244 where the learned judges observed that: "The mere fact that the assessee has filed appeal against the assessment is not a good defence in a prosecution for non-payment of the tax due from him within the time allowed." This court has also taken the same view in the judgment in Criminal Appeal 118 of 1962. 6. The order of acquittal is erroneous and has to be set aside. It is set aside and the respondent is convicted under S.19 [b] and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. He will in addition pay the tax Rs. 610/- which he has failed to pay within a month from this date. In case of non-payment the amount shall be recovered from him under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as if it were a fine. Allowed.