ORDER Oza. J.- 1. Criminal Revision Nos. 119 of 1978, 120 of 1978, 121 of 1978, 122 of 1978, 123 of 1978, 124 of 1978, 125 of 1978 and 126 of 1978 are revisions filed by the same petitioner against his conviction under section 14(1)(b) and © of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act. 1950, and the sentence of fire of Rs.1000/- under each count for breach of S.14(1) (b) and S.14(1) © in default the sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment for each offence and maintained on appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore. In all these revisions identical facts, identical questions are involved and all of them are, therefore. Being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The prosecution case at the trial was that the petitioner was an excise contractor for country liquor in the State of Madhya Bharat and bad his wine shops at Mhow and near about. The Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act was imposed on 1-5-1950 and it is alleged that the petitioner, therefore, was a dealer registered under the Sales Tax Act and his turnover brought him within the taxable limits. It is further alleged that under S.7 of the Madhya Bharat Act he should have filed a return for every quarter and paid sales-tax on the basis of the assessments. These cases pertain to different quarters and for failure to file returns in three quarters one prosecution was launched. It was also alleged that as the petitioner failed to file his returns - within the prescribed time best judgment assessments were made and demand notices were issued, but the petitioner did not pay the amount of tax so assessed, Thus, it was alleged that the petitioner committed the breach by not filing the return after the end of the quarter and also did not pay tax as required within the prescribed time and thereby committed breach of S.14(1)(b) and © and as non compliance with these provisions has been made penal by the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of S.14, a prosecution was launched and at trial the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. It is against this that the present revision petitions have been filed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Notification issued for imposition of sales tax dated 22-5-1950, in the Madhya Bharat Govt. It is against this that the present revision petitions have been filed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Notification issued for imposition of sales tax dated 22-5-1950, in the Madhya Bharat Govt. Gazette is not in accordance with t he Government Regulation Act as it is not in the name of the Governor and not authenticated in that manner. It was also contended that the petitioner being an excise contractor he had to sell the country liquor in accordance with the conditions of the licence and in the conditions of the licence the sale price of the liquor was fixed. It was not open, therefore, to the petitioner to charge any price higher than the price indicated in the licence and it was, therefore, not possible for the petitioner to collect sales tax from the customers. According to him this difficulty was brought to the notice of the Commissioner who assured him that sales tax would not be charged, although that question has been set at rest as a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, which has ultimately been dismissed. But it was contended by the learned counsel that in view of the doubt about the imposition not being legal and the conflict between the conditions of the licence and the liability to pay sales tax, the petitioner could not file the returns within the prescribed time. He also contended that the prosecution's own case was that notice for the first time of demand was served on the petitioner on 23-6-1962, long after the sales have been effected and as he had not collected the tax from the customers it was not possible for him to pay it and considering these circumstances it was contended that it could not be held as according to the learned counsel sub-clauses(b) and © of sub section (1) of S. 14 provided that if the breach is committed without a reasonable cause then alone it would amount to a breach, which has been made penal. Thus, according to the learned counsel in these circumstances it could not be held that the petitioner committed breach of the two sub clauses of sub section (1) of S.14 without any reasonable cause and, therefore, the conviction could not be maintained, He placed reliance on the decision reported in Commissioner of Sale Tax M.P. v. Radhakisan and others (1979) I.T.R. Vol. 118, page 534). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the Notification issued in the Madhya Bharat Govt. Gazette clearly talks of an order issued by the Rajpramukh of the State and therefore, it could not be said that it is not a Notification in accordance with the Government Regulation Act He further contended that although returns were to be filed after each quarter and according to the prosecution, best judgment assessments were made immediately thereafter but he frankly conceded that as the order of sanction itself shows that the notices were served for the first time in 1962 still he contended that it could not be said that the petitioner failed to comply with the two provisions because of any reasonable cause. According to the learned counsel the petitioner has not made out any reasonable cause and in fact that should have been submitted to the tax authorities when notices for demand were issued and served to him in 1962. It was further contended by the learned counsel that when the sales-tax was made payable no excuse could be made that because: of the conditions of the licence he was bound to charge the rate of country liquor fixed in the licence itself. He was bound to collect the tax and if the petitioner has chosen not to do it that could not be considered to be a reasonable excuse for non-payment of tax. He further contended that in fact the petitioner in order to avoid the tax and the proceedings against him filed a suit and delayed the matters, it appears that the notices could not be served on him because the suit was pending in the Civil Court. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner has been rightly convicted. 5. He further contended that in fact the petitioner in order to avoid the tax and the proceedings against him filed a suit and delayed the matters, it appears that the notices could not be served on him because the suit was pending in the Civil Court. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner has been rightly convicted. 5. The Notification issued in the Madhya Bharat Government Gazette dated 22-5-1950 imposing sales-tax on the wine sale by the petitioner reads thus :- foKfIr dzekda … fnukWd „„ ebZ lu~ ƒˆ‡Œ e/; Hkkjr fodz; dj fo/kku dzekda …Œ lora~ „ŒŒ‰ foŒ dh /kkjk ‡ ds v/khu iznRr ‘kfDr;ks dks iz;ksx es ykrs gq;s Jhear jktizeq[k us vkns’k iznku fd;k gS fd fnukWd ƒ twu ƒˆ‡Œ bZŒ ls fuEu lwph ds LrEHk dzekad „ es of.kZr inkFkksa ds lc/ka es fodz; dj e/;Hkkjr es] muds fodz; dh ml fLFkfr ij tks LrEHk dzekd … crykbZ xbZ gS] LrEHk dzekad † es vkSlr nj ls olwy fd;k tkosxkA bl lwph ds izHkko’khy gksus ij ‘kklu xtV fo’ks”kkad fnukad …Œ vizSy ƒˆ‡Œ bZŒ es izdkf’kr lwph fnuWkd ƒ twu lu~ ƒˆ‡Œ bZŒ ls izHkkoghu gks tkosxkA vr% ;g foKfIr loZ lacf/kr tu ds lwpukFkZ ,oa ikyukFkZ izdkf’kr dh tkrh gSaA dsŒ fiŒ lsdzVjh xouZesUV This Notification mentions that the Raj-Pramukh has passed orders for imposition of tax at the rate mentioned in the Schedule below from the 1st of June. It is no doubt true that this order does not speak of the order in the name of the Raj-Pramukh not, it has been mentioned that the Secretary to the Government has published this Notification on behalf of and under the authority of the Raj-Pramukh. Apparently, therefore, this Notification could' not be said to be validly notified as required under the Regulation of Government Business Act of Madhya Bharat. Learned counsel for the State did not contend that the Notification is not by and in the name of the Raj Pramukh or that it should not have been authenticated in the name of the Raj Pramukh, but it was contended that because the body of the Notification talks of the orders passed by the Raj Pramukh, it could not be said that it is not a Notification issued in the name of the Raj-Pramukh and is not also published under the authority and in the name of the Raj-Pramukh. Admittedly, the Notification is neither issued in the name of the Raj Pramukh nor discloses that it was issued under the authority of the Raj-Pramukh. In these circumstances it could not be disputed that it is not clearly established that the Notification is completely in order and, therefore, the tax is validly imposed beyond any doubt. So far as the present case is concerned, in my opinion, it is not necessary for me to come to a conclusion as to whether this would be a valid Notification imposing sales-tax on country liquor as if it is held that it was a doubtful affair as to whether tax has been validly imposed on the country liquor it will be enough because if the petitioner reasonably doubted the imposition and did not file the returns as required, it cannot be said that he failed to comply with the provisions without any reasonable cause. The defects of the Notification mentioned above clearly go to show that it could not be said without doubt that the Notification validly imposed tax on country liquor and it is for this reason that it being a doubtful affair this Itself is enough and it is not necessary for me in this criminal prosecution to decide the question of validity of this Notification. 6. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was an excise contractor and that the conditions of the licence were fixed by the department. It is also not in dispute that one of the conditions of the licence was to sell liquor at the price fixed by she department and it is also not in dispute that the prices were so fixed. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that after thin Notification impositing sales tax on country liquor was issued the excise department did not modify the conditions of the licence. It also did not modify the rate list, which was a part of the conditions of the licence. It also did not indicate to the contractors that in spite of the fact that rates have been provided for them and they can charge sales tax over and above the price fixed in the conditions of the licence. It also did not modify the rate list, which was a part of the conditions of the licence. It also did not indicate to the contractors that in spite of the fact that rates have been provided for them and they can charge sales tax over and above the price fixed in the conditions of the licence. It is also not in dispute that if the petitioner or any excise contractor would have sold the liquor at a price higher it was provided in the conditions of the licence that his licence was liable to be cancelled. In these circumstances it could not be disputed that the petitioner was in a difficult situation. On the one hand he was expected to follow the conditions of the licence and charge the rate which was provided therein and on the other hand sales tax was imposed, which apparently was imposed by a doubtful Notification and the petitioner was not m a position to decide as it he charged the sales tax he would run the risk of his licence being cancelled. It appears that under these circumstances as alleged by him in the Civil Suit he approached the Commissioner and the Commissioner assured him. Whether the assurance was given or not is not at all material as that controverey has now hen set at rest by the dismissal of the Civil Suit. But the Circumstances mentioned above clearly indicate that if the petitioner did not file the returns within the time prescribed after the end of the quarter and did not pay tax as he did not collect the sales tax from the customers, he had reasonable grounds not to do it 7. It was seriously contended by the learned counsel for the State that once the best judgment assessment was made and demand notice was served all doubts apparently should have been resolved and thereafter the petitioner should have started collecting the tax and filing the return and paying it to the department and if he has failed to do it after the best judgment assessment was made known to him there is no reasonable cause available to him. This argument of the learned counsel for the State is based on an assumption that the petitioner must have known about the best judgment assessment. This argument of the learned counsel for the State is based on an assumption that the petitioner must have known about the best judgment assessment. But the sanction which has been produced and proved in this case as no prosecution could be launched without a sanction of the Commissioner of Sales-tax, itself in clear words states : mDr dj dh ekWxa ds fy, O;kikjh ij fu/kkfjZr QkeZ Š es lwpuk i= dzekda „Š„‰ fnukWd ƒ‹&ˆ&‡ƒ ;g funsZ’k nsrs gq, fuokZg fd;k x;k fd mDr lwpuk i= dh izkfIr ds lksyg fnol ds vUnj eakxh xbZ dj dh jde dks tek djsA mDr lwpuk i= O;kikjh dks fnukWd „…&ˆ&ƒ‹ˆ„ dks feykA This is the recital in Ex, P/5, which is a sanction issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, dated 19-2-1964 and this clearly shows that although the date of notice may be 19-3-1951 but it was served on the petitioner on 23-6-1962. It is not the case of the prosecution that any notice was served on the petitioner before 23-6-1962. It is, therefore, clear that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he for the first time learnt from the department that he was expected to pay sales-tax on country liquor on 23-6-1962. The argument, therefore, of the learned counsel for the State that after the receipt of this notice the petitioner has no reasonable cause not to comply with the provisions of the Act is of no help as apparently none of these prosecutions are for non-compliance with the provisions of section 14 after 23-6-1962. It is, therefore, clear that up to the 23-6-1962 even the department did not serve any notice on the petitioner. 8. It was further contended that the reasonable cause has to be shown by the petitioner himself and it was contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not led any evidence to show any reasonable cause. Section 14(1)(b) and (c) of the Act reads thus: "S.14(1) If the assessing authority in the course of any proceeding under this Act is satisfied that any person - (a) …………………….. (b) has without reasonable cause failed to pay the tax due within the time allowed; or (c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his turnover, or failed to furnish it within the time allowed;," 9. (b) has without reasonable cause failed to pay the tax due within the time allowed; or (c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his turnover, or failed to furnish it within the time allowed;," 9. It is, therefore, clear that the penal provisions are attracted only when it is established that a person without any reasonable cause has failed to comply with the two sub-clauses, one payment of tax and the other furnishing of the return in time. It is, therefore, clear that merely failure to file return or failure to pay tax does not make out an offence which is made penal under the provisions of the Act, but failure to file a return or pay tax becomes penal when it is done without a reasonable cause and apparently it is for the prosecution to establish both the ingredients of the offence. But in the present case the question is not of any importance as the material already on record, as discussed above, clearly shows that there was reasonable cause for the petitioner not to file the return within the time and not to pay tax within the prescribed period and in view of this, in my opinion, therefore, the petitioner could not be convicted for the breach of these two sub-clauses and, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner could not be maintained as it is not in accordance with law. 10. These revisions are, therefore, allowed. The conviction and the sentence passed against the petitioner in all these cases are set aside. The amount of fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded.