ORDER Two Criminal Prosecutions were launched against the petitioner. Though separate orders of conviction were made by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, K. G. P. in Criminal Case No. 2531/61 and Criminal Case No. 2532/61, as both the cases involve the same points these two petitions filed against the conviction in those two cases are dealt with by a common order. 2. For the two years 1958-59 and 1959-60 the petitioner was called upon to furnish his accounts for purposes of assessment of sales tax. According to the evidence, of P. W. 1 it is found that he committed default. Thereupon final assessment orders were passed and the assessment in both the cases was concluded on 13-3-1961. Demand notice in respect of these taxes was issued to the petitioner by registered post. It was acknowledged by him on 18-3-1961. As the petitioner failed to pay tax for both the years within the time stipulated in Form No. 6 after the receipt of the demand notice, prosecutions were launched against him under S. 29 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. In both the cases the petitioner was convicted under S. 29(1) (b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. It was ordered also that he should pay the tax in each case. Aggrieved by these convictions, the petitioner has filed these petitions, viz., Criminal Revision Petition No. 176/62 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 177/62. Both of them are dealt with in this common order. 3. A number of contentions have been raised by Sri Ullal, the learned advocate for the petitioner. His first contention is that there was no notice of final assessment to the petitioner; that there is no legal evidence of the notice of the final assessment and hence the prosecution itself is unmaintainable. There does not seem to be any substance in this contention. No doubt the learned Magistrate in the course of his order makes reference to the fact that the petitioner had acknowledged the notice of demand on 18-3-1961 and the learned Government Pleader however has brought to my notice that the acknowledgment form has been filed in the Second case viz., Cr. R. P. 177/61. (in C. C. No. 2532/61). No doubt the learned Magistrate in the course of his order makes reference to the fact that the petitioner had acknowledged the notice of demand on 18-3-1961 and the learned Government Pleader however has brought to my notice that the acknowledgment form has been filed in the Second case viz., Cr. R. P. 177/61. (in C. C. No. 2532/61). This acknowledgment marked as Exhibit P-3 clearly indicates that the notices of demand were for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. 4. The further contention of Sri Ullal is that the notice of demand should be in Form No. 6 and the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that the provisions of Form No. 6 were complied with. The clear mention of this Form No. 6 acknowledgment which has been signed by the petitioner indicates that there is no such lacuna or defect. 5. The next contention raised by Sri Ullal is more a point of constitution rather than a matter for decision by a criminal court. According to him Section 7 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act has been interpreted so as to be applicable to taxes levied on sales only and not on purchases. It is not necessary for me to consider this aspect for the reason stated previously. This is outside the purview of the Criminal Court. More so because of Section 32 of the Act which lays down that the validity of the assessment of any tax or of the levy of any fee or other amount, made under this Act, or the liability of any person to pay any tax, fee or other amount so assessed or levied shall not be questioned in any Criminal Court in any prosecution or other proceeding whether under this Act or otherwise. 6. It was next contended by Sri Ullal that the prosecution was in a great hurry to launch these prosecutions. In fact proceedings challenging the imposition of the taxes are pending before the relevant authorities. In this connection a few dates - may be noticed. The notice as per Exhibit P-3 the acknowledgment was served on the petitioner on 18-3-1961. Form No. 6 contemplates 21 days to be given to the assessee to pay the tax from the date of the acknowledgment of that notice. The prosecution is launched on 7-6-1961. In this connection a few dates - may be noticed. The notice as per Exhibit P-3 the acknowledgment was served on the petitioner on 18-3-1961. Form No. 6 contemplates 21 days to be given to the assessee to pay the tax from the date of the acknowledgment of that notice. The prosecution is launched on 7-6-1961. In the meanwhile the time allowed for the filing of the appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax had expired. It was brought to my notice by the learned Government Pleader, and it is admitted by Sri Ullal learned advocate for the petitioner, that the appeal had been dismissed, and that the petitioner had filed a revision petition which is pending. It was urged by Sri Ullal that the authority should have awaited the result of the revision before launching the prosecution. There does not seem to be any substance in this contention as well. 7. According to the dates noted supra the prosecution was launched sometime after the expiry of the time stipulated for preferring an appeal. If the contention of Sri Ullal is accepted it would lead to inconvenient results for in such cases steps to be taken against the assessee would be unduly delayed. Such a contention would be putting too unreasonable an interpretation on the provisions for the collection of taxes, by resorting to coercive process. 8. Sri Ullal relies upon a decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Public Prosecution v. V. M. Ramalingam Pillai, AIR 1958 Mad 544 and urges that at least propriety required that the Taxing Authorities should have called a halt without resorting to the prosecution. One of the points considered in that case was the result of such a prosecution and as to whether launching of such prosecution contravenes the provisions of Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. Their Lordships came to the conclusion that it does not transgress Art. 21 but indicated the propriety of launching such a prosecution in the following words :- "The assessment does not become final till the time fixed for filing an appeal has expired. If the assessee has appealed then it is very unlikely that he would be prosecuted pending the disposal of the appeal. If the assessee has appealed then it is very unlikely that he would be prosecuted pending the disposal of the appeal. And, if the department should be so ill-advised as to do that, the assessee can always bring the facts to the attention of the Magistrate and ask that the case be adjourned till the disposal of the appeal. We must proceed on the basis that the individuals upon whom powers had been conferred by various enactments would act in a reasonable manner. It they fail to do so and an abuse of the process of Court is likely to occur the party concerned can always come to this court and ask for relief. The validity of an enactment cannot be determined on the assumption that all the authorities concerned would act in an unreasonable or improper manner." X X X X Sri Ullal submits that by an application the petitioner brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that a revision was pending. At the same time it should be remembered that an appeal was filed by the assessee and it was dismissed. The learned Magistrate has used his discretion in proceeding with the prosecution and I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with that discretion. 9. The last point that was urged by Sri Ullal is that a separate notice should have been given for having imposed the penalty in each one of these cases. Even this contention should fail because the learned Government Pleader has brought to my notice a notice issued under S. 13 (2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act dated 12-4-61, calling upon the petitioner in each of these cases to pay the penalty. 10. In the result these two revision petitions fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.