Nittoor Sreenivasa Rau, J.-The sales-tax authorities filed a complaint against the Respondent (accused) under section 15-B of the Madras General Sales-tax Act in consequence of the Respondent’s wilful failure to pay within 1 he specified time the sales-tax to which he had been assessed. The assessment was in respect of transactions pertaining to a restaurant which the accused is alleged to have run during the year in question, i.e., the year ending 31st March, 1954. The accused’s defence was that it was not he that ran the restaurant and that the total turnover determined by the assessing authority included transactions contained in two account-books produced by another person as relating to the accused’s business while, as a matter of fact, they did not relate to his business at all. The learned Magistrate upheld these contentions. In the concluding part of his judgment he says: “The prosecution has not proved its case against the accused. In any event, it must be said that there is serious doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of it”. He accordingly acquitted the accused. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal. It appears to us that the approach of the learned Magistrate tothe matter before him was entirely wrong. It was not for him to consider any question of fact, as apparently he was doing since he gives the accused the benefit of doubt. Section 16-A of the Act makes it quite clear that the validity of the assessment or the liability of any person to pay the tax shall not be questioned by any criminal Court in a prosecution like the one on hand. We are not expressing any opinion as to when the levy itself is ultra vires or not sanctioned by law, such a plea could not be taken by the accused. In the present case, the accused had every opportunity to make his representation before the assessing authority as to whether he was carrying on his business or not and to place before that authority all the materia1 in regard to his turnover and other relevant matters. It is indeed admitted that he submitted a return in respect of the year indicating that his turnover was Rs. 7,500. This would clearly show that he was carrying on business during the relevant period. It is indeed admitted that he submitted a return in respect of the year indicating that his turnover was Rs. 7,500. This would clearly show that he was carrying on business during the relevant period. It is also borne out by the record that he admitted before the Sales-tax Officer the account-books to be in his writing and to relate to his business. It, therefore, follows that it was after taking all these circumstances into consideration, the Sales-lax Officer arrived at his conclusion in regard to the turnover of the accused’s business during the relevant period. The learned Magistrate in the course of his judgment goes into the question whether the accused’s admission that the account-books were his can be relied upon or not. He also says that even if they belonged to the accused, it is not known as to which items pertained to the hotel and which items to his household purchases, etc. Quite obviously, the learned Magistrate misconceived the scope of the inquiry before him and thought that he was sitting in appeal over the decision of the Sales-tax Authority on questions of fact. This, he had no jurisdiction to do. If the accused was aggrieved by the order or the assessing authority it was for him to resort to such remedies as were open to him under the taxing statutes. As mentioned above, he has not challenged the assessment order as being ultra vires or on any other grounds affecting the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The order of assessment must, therefore, be regarded asconclusive for purposes of the prosecution. We must, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal and as there is conclusive evidence in regard to the wilful default on the part of the accused to pay the tax within the rime allowed, we must find him guilty of an offence under section 15-B of the Madras General Sales-tax Act. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the acquittal and convict the accused and sentence him to a fine of Rs.50. The amount payable by him towards sales-tax which he has failed to pay is Rs.237-10-5 which shall be recoverable from him as if it were a fine. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed.