( 1 ) THIS revision petition under S. 13 (4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Act) is by an assessee who was assessed to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), for the accounting period 1-11-1959 to 20-12-1960. He was served with a demand notice on 2-3-1963, calling upon him to pay the tax on or before 22-3-1963. As he failed to pay the tax, the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Hubli, made before the Judicial magistrate, First Class, II Court, Hubli, an application under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, for recovery of the said arrear of tax as if it was a fine imposed on him (the petitioner ). ( 2 ) BEFORE the learned Magistrate, the petitioner contended that his transactions sought to be taxed, were not liable to tax under the Central Act, that therefore the assessment was invalid and illegal and that hence the application for recovery of the tax under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, was not maintainable. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate, by his order dt. 6-6-64, overruled the petitioner's objections. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for revising the said order of the Magistrate. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate held that the validity of an assessment to sales tax or the liability of any person to pay such tax, cannot be questioned in proceedings under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act. Mr. S. S. Ujjannavar, learned Counsel for the assessee, assailed the order of the learned Magistrate on the following grounds: (i) S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act has no application to the recovery of arrears of Central Sales Tax. (ii) The bar under Section 32 of the Mysore Act, has no application to proceedings under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Act; and (iii) S. 32 of the Mysore Act which bars the validity of an assessment being questioned in a Criminal Court, has no application to proceedings for recovery of Central Sales Tax. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 13, as it stood when the impugned order was made by the learned Magistrate, read:"13. Payment and recovery of tax.- (3) Any. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 13, as it stood when the impugned order was made by the learned Magistrate, read:"13. Payment and recovery of tax.- (3) Any. tax assessed, or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer, may without prejudice to any other mode of collection, be recovered- (a) as if it were an arrear of land revenue, or (b) on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him: provided that where a dealer or other person who has appealed or applied for revision of any order made under this Act and has complied with an order made by the appellate or the revising authority in regard to the payment of the tax or other amount, no proceedings for recovery under this sub-section shall be taken or continued until the disposal of such appeal or application for revision. "mr. Ujjannavar submitted that the term 'this Act' occurring in subset. (3) of S. 13, can only mean the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and that hence that sub-section is applicable to recovery of only arrears of State sales Tax levied under the Mysore Act and not arrears of Central Sales tax levied under the Central Act. ( 4 ) THE relevant part of sub-sec. (3) of S. 9 of the Central Act reads: " Subject to other provisions of this Act and Rules made thereunder the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State, shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax including tax in penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act, as if the tax or penalty payable by such dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State. : (underlining (italics) is mine ). It is seen that the authorities empowered under the respective State sales Tax Act to enforce payment of State Sales Tax, have been empowered by sub-sec. (3) of S. 9 of the Central Act to enforce payment of Central sales Tax. : (underlining (italics) is mine ). It is seen that the authorities empowered under the respective State sales Tax Act to enforce payment of State Sales Tax, have been empowered by sub-sec. (3) of S. 9 of the Central Act to enforce payment of Central sales Tax. The term, 'enforce payment', occurring in S. 9 (3) of the Central act, is in my opinion, wide enough to include recovery of any arrear of tax by a Magistrate as if it (such arrear) was a fine imposed by him. However, Mr. Ujjannavar contended that the provisions of S. 9 of the central Act, do not attract S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, for recovery of arrears of Central Sales Tax by a Magistrate as if it (such arrear) was a fine. Support for this contention was sought to be derived from the decision of this Court in Guldar Narasappa v. Commercial Tax Officer , 14 STC. 628. ( 5 ) THERE, the question that arose for determination was whether a penalty could be levied under S. 13 (2) (b) of the Mysore Act for default in payment of the central Sales Tax. This Court held that the provisions relating to penalty in a taxing statute, are substantive in character and do not form merely a part of the procedural law and that unless penal provisions of the State law are expressly adopted by S. 9 (3) of the Central Act, they cannot be relied on for the purpose of recovery of penalty for non-payment of central Sales Tax. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, the above decision has no application to the present case because the question, that arises here is not whether penalty can be imposed tor non-payment of Central Sales Tax; but whether the provisions of the Mysore Act relating to recovery of arrears of State Sales Tax, can be applied for recovery of arrears of Central Sales Tax. Thus, I am unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Ujjannavar that S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act has no application for recovery of arrears of Central Sales Tax. ( 7 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Thus, I am unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Ujjannavar that S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act has no application for recovery of arrears of Central Sales Tax. ( 7 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Ujjannavar that even if proceedings under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, can be taken for recovery of arrears of Central Sales Tax, there is no bar for an assessee urging before the magistrate that the tax assessed on him is invalid and cannot be recovered. Mr. Ujjannavar argued that S. 32 of the Mysore Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts to question the validity of an assessment and the liability of an assessee to pay the tax assessed, has no application to proceedings under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, because the Magistrate referred, to in S. 13 (3) (b) is a persona designate, and not a Court. In support of his contention, Mr. Ujjannavar rolied on the decision of this Court in the State v. G. L. Udyawar ,air. 1962 SC. 574. There, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Dargha Committee, Ajmer v. State of Rajasthan, AIR. 1962 SC. 574. this Court held that a Magistrate functioning under S. 13, (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, must be treated as a persona designata and not as a Criminal Court functioning or exercising any authority. Mr. Ujjannavar is right in contending that the bar imposed by S. 32 of the Mysore Act, to go into the question of validity of assessment, operates only on Criminal Courts, and not on Magistrates exercising power under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act. Even so, the question still is whether a Magistrate exercising power under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act can go into the question of the validity of an assessment. That section creates a statutory fiction that a tax assessed or any other amount due, under the Mysore Act, is a fine imposed by the Magistrate. What the magistrate is empowered to do under S. 13 (3) (b), is merely to recover the tax assessed as if it were a fine imposed by him. That section creates a statutory fiction that a tax assessed or any other amount due, under the Mysore Act, is a fine imposed by the Magistrate. What the magistrate is empowered to do under S. 13 (3) (b), is merely to recover the tax assessed as if it were a fine imposed by him. When once such legal fiction transforms the tax assessed, into a fine imposed by a Magistrate, it appears to me that the Magistrate cannot go into the validity of the tax so assessed because such tax becomes, by statutory fiction, a fine imposed by him and he cannot, himsef, go into the validity of such fine imposed by him, when he takes proceedings to recover such fine. However, Mr. Ujjannavar referred to certain observations of this court in Diwakar v. State of Mysore, 1962 Mys. L. J. 912. to the effect that the Magistrate should go into the question whether the person from whom any amount is sought to be recovered under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, is liable to pay such amount. ( 8 ) IN Diwakar's case (4), certain tax due from a person, was sought to be recovered from the petitioner therein on the ground that he was a transferee ot the business formerly run by that person. That petitioner denied his liability to pay the said tax. When an application was made before the magistrate for recovery of the said tax from him, under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act, the Magistrate refused to entertain his objections on the ground that no such objections could be taken before him (the Magistrate) in view of 32 of the Mysore Act. ( 9 ) HEGDE. J. , who spoke for the Bench, pointed out that admittedly there had not been any assessment of tax or fee on the petitioner therein. This is what his Lordship said at page 914: the reason behind the ban contained in S. 32 is that before steps are taken in Criminal Courts, the appropriate authorities and tribunals would have determined after hearing the interested parties, the tax or fee to be levied and therefore, there is nothing to re-agitate the question of the validity of the assessment of tax or levy of any fee or other amount or the liability of any person to pay any tax, fee or other amount levied. But sec. But sec. 32 unlike S. 13 does not refer to "any other amount due". The liability of the persons mentioned in Ss. 14 and 15 can be appropriately described either as amount due from them or as the amount they are liable to pay. They are neither assessed to tax nor any tax, fee or other amount can be said to have been levied on them. There is no provision in the S. T. Act of 1957 to determine any controversy that may arise between the assessing authorities and the persons who are liable either under S. 14 or under S. 15. That is evidently the reason why S. 32 does not refer to 'amount due' though it speaks of tax assessed, and fine or other amount levied. If that is not the true position, S. 32 may become an instrument of oppression; that provision can be used for making illegal exactions. In order to interpret S. 32 in the manner that the learned Counsel for the Department wants us to interpret we have to assume that legislature had no regard for the principles of natural justice. Such an assumption is opposed to our constitutional theories, our basic principles of jurisprudence, and our notions of justice. The interpretation contended for by the learned Counsel for the Department is abhorrent to our sense of justice. Therefore, unless compelled by the language of the provision we will not be justified in accepting that interpretation. " from the aforesaid observations, it is clear that that case is distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as the tax levied on the present petitioner was after notice to him and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. Moreover, he had ample opportunities to impugn that assessment in successive appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and it was also Open to him to come up to this Court in revision under S. 23 of the Mysore Act. If he did not avail himself of the remedies by way of appeals and revision, he has only to thank himself. He cannot seek to challenge before the Magistrate the validity of the assessment, ignoring the complete machinery provided in the mysore Act by way of appeals and revision, for determining the validity of the assessment. ( 10 ) LASTLY it was contended by Mr. He cannot seek to challenge before the Magistrate the validity of the assessment, ignoring the complete machinery provided in the mysore Act by way of appeals and revision, for determining the validity of the assessment. ( 10 ) LASTLY it was contended by Mr. Ujjannavar that S. 32 of the Mysore act which bars Criminal Courts from going into the validity of assessment, has no application to proceedings for recovery of Central Sales Tax. As seen earlier, S. 32 of the Mysore Act has no application to proceedings under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Mysore Act even for recovery of State Sales Tax, as the Magistrate exercising power under Section 13 (3) (b) is a persona designata and not a Court. But independently of the bar under S. 32, i have reached the conclusion that the Magistrate recovering arrears of tax assessed, as if it were a fine, cannot go into validity of the assessment. That the bar under S. 32 does not apply to proceedings under S. 13 (3) (b) for recovery of Central Sales Tax, can be of no assistance to Mr. Ujjannavar. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .