1957 (4) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Additional Collector in recovery proceedings.
2. Ownership of the attached property - benami or personal property.
3. Adequacy of legal remedy sought by petitioner.

Jurisdiction of Additional Collector:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector in taking proceedings for the recovery of sales tax as arrears of land revenue. The court noted that under sub-section (3) of section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the State Government could authorize an Additional Collector to exercise the powers of a Collector. It was emphasized that if such authorization existed, the action of the Additional Collector would be within his jurisdiction. However, the court pointed out that the petitioner failed to raise this specific ground earlier in the proceedings, and therefore, the court was not inclined to consider this argument at a late stage.

Ownership of the attached property - benami or personal property:
The petitioner claimed ownership of the attached property, arguing that it was purchased in 1945 and was her personal property, not belonging to her husband. The Additional Collector, however, held that she was merely a benamidar for her husband. The court acknowledged that the question of ownership was a disputed issue of fact, more suitable for determination in a regular civil suit rather than in the current proceedings. The court emphasized that a question of title like this could not be satisfactorily resolved based solely on affidavits and that the petitioner had the right to pursue appropriate relief through a civil suit.

Adequacy of legal remedy sought by petitioner:
The court considered the adequacy of the legal remedy sought by the petitioner through the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioner had the option to file a civil suit for appropriate reliefs, which would be a more efficacious and suitable remedy compared to the writ petition. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it with costs, highlighting that the petitioner's remedy through a civil suit would be more appropriate for resolving the disputed questions of fact regarding ownership of the attached property.