Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 279 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 18	 1957	 of the Kerala High Court in O. P. No. 87 of 1956. A. V. Sayed Muhammad	 for the appellants. The respondents did not appear. 182 1960. December 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH	 J. This is an appeal with the special leave of this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated November 18	 1957	 passed in a petition for writ of prohibition under article 226 of the Constitution. The State of Kerala and the Tahsildars of Kottayam and Kanjirappally Taluks are the appellants	 and C.M. Francis & Co.	 a partnership firm	 is the first respondent	 and the partners of the firm are the remaining respondents. The respondents were doing business in hill produce like pepper	 ginger	 betelnuts etc.	 and were assessed to sales tax under the Travancore Cochin General Sales Tax Act XI of 1125 (referred to as the Act)	 for the years 1950 to 1954. The respondents have to pay a sum of Rs. 1	01	716 4 3 as tax. In 1954	 proceedings were started against them under section 13 of the Act	 which provides that if the tax is not paid as laid down in that section	 the whole of the amount or such part thereof as remains due	 may be recovered as if it were an arrears of land revenue. It appears that the pro ceedings were not fruitful	 and a prosecution under section 19 of the Act was instituted against the partners in the Court of the First Class Magistrate	 Ponkunnam. Respondents 2 to 5 pleaded guilty	 and the Magistrate passed an order on October 18	 1955 as follows: "The sentence or other final order: A 1 to 4 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ each and in default to undergo section 1. for one month each. A 1 to 4 admit that they failed to pay on demand by the competent authority	 a sum of Rs. 1	01	716 4 3 due from them as sales tax for the years 1950 to 1954. This amount will be realised from A 1 to 4	 jointly or severally	 individually or collectively under the provisions of the Cr. P.C. for realisation of criminal fines	 as if it were a fine imposed by this court on each accused individually and all of them together. Take steps for the realisation. " Warrants under section 386 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued to the Collector of Kottayam District for recovery of the arrears of sales tax. 183 The authorities	 however	 started proceedings again under section 13 of the Act read with the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Revenue Recovery Act	 1951 (VII of 1951)	 to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue	 and attached some properties belonging to the respondents within the jurisdiction of the second and third appellants	 the Tahsildars of Kottayam and Kanjirappally Taluks. The firm thereupon filed the petition under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition or other order or direction to the effect that the proceedings for realisation of the arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act be quashed. In the petition	 the respondents urged that inasmuch as they were prosecuted under section 19 of the Act and the Magistrate had issued warrants	 the procedure for recovery under section 13 was not available. They contended that under section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the warrant is to be deemed to be a decree and has to be executed according to civil process applicable to the execution of decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure. They	 therefore	 submitted that the procedure under section 19 of the Act was no longer open	 and could not be proceeded with. Section 19 of the Act	 so far as it is material	 reads as follows: "Any person who. . . . (b) fails to pay within the time allowed	 any tax assessed on him under this Act	 or (d)fraudulently evades the payment of any tax assessed on him. . shall on conviction by a Magistrate of the first class	 be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees and in the case of a conviction under clause (b)	 (d) the Magistrate shall specify in the order the tax which the person convicted has failed or evaded to pay and the tax so specified shall be recoverable as if it were a fine under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the timebeing in force. " In dealing with the question	 the learned Judges of the High Court felt that section 13 of the Act was in the 184 nature of a general law	 over which the special procedure prescribed by section 19 of the Act read with section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to prevail. They	 however	 thought that	 since all the processes available under section 19 of the Act were also available under section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 it was not necessary to decide what would happen if the proceedings under section 386 came to nothing. They observed that if the question arose	 they would consider it. The writ of prohibition was granted by the High Court. The respondents did not appear in this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants	 who has drawn our attention to all the relevant provisions of the law. The question which arises is whether section 19 must be taken to prevail over section 13 of the Act. Both the sections lay down the mode for recovery of arrears of tax	 and	 as has already been noticed by the High Court	 lead to the application of the process for recovery by attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties	 belonging to the tax evader. It cannot be said that one proceeding is more general than the other	 because there is much that is common between them	 in so far as the mode of recovery is concerned. Section 19	 in addition to recovery of the amount	 gives the power to the Magistrate to convict and sentence the offender to fine or in default of payment of fine	 to imprisonment. In our opinion	 neither of the remedies for recovery is destructive of the other	 because if two remedies are open	 both can be resorted to	 at the option of the authorities recovering the amount. It was observed by Mahmood	 J. in Shankar Sahai vs Din Dial (1) that where the law provides two or more remedies	 there is no reason to think that one debars the other and therefore both must be understood to remain open to him	 who claims a remedy. Unless the statute in express words or by necessary implication laid down that one remedy was to the exclusion of the other	 the observations of Mahmood	 J. quoted above must apply. In our opinion	 in the absence of any such provision in the (1) I.L.R. (1889) 12 All 409 (F.B.)	 418. 185 Act		 both the remedies were open to the authorities	 and they could resort to any one of them at their option. The appeal is allowed	 and the judgment of the High Court set aside. Though the respondents did not appear	 in the circumstances of the case we think we should make an order that the costs shall be paid by them both here and in the High Court. Appeal allowed.

The respondents were assessed to sales tax under the Travancore Cochin General Sales Tax Act and proceedings were started against them under section 13 of the Act for the recovery of the arrears of Sales Tax as if they were arrears of land revenue. The proceedings were not fruitful. Thereafter a prosecution under section 19 of the Act was instituted against the partners who pleaded guilty and the magistrate issued warrants under section 386(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Collector of the District for the recovery of the arrears of sales tax as if they were a fine imposed by that court. The authorities again started proceedings under section 13 of the Act read with Travancore Cochin Revenue Recovery Act	 1951	 and certain properties were attached. The respondents urged that in as much as they were prosecuted under section 19 of the Act and the magistrate had issued warrants	 the procedure for recovery under section 13 of the Act was not available. The question was whether section 19 was to be taken to prevail over section 13 of the Act. Held	 that neither of the remedies for recovery of arrears of tax as laid down by sections 13 and 19 of the Travancore Cochin General Sales Tax Act was destructive of each other and unless the statute laid down in express words or by necessary implication that one remedy was to the exclusion of the other	 both the remedies were open to the authorities and they could resort to any one of them at their option. Shankar Sabai vs Din Dial	 I.L.R. [1889] 12 All. 409 (F.B.)	 418	approved.