1970 (4) TMI 144 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of sales tax recovery proceedings based on the status of the assessee and liability to pay sales tax.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the validity of sales tax recovery proceedings, arguing that as an office-bearer of a registered trade union, he was not personally liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of a biri manufacturing business conducted by the union. The petitioner contended that the trade union, not him personally, was liable for the sales tax. However, the court held that the status of the assessee is determined in the assessment proceedings and cannot be altered during recovery proceedings. The court emphasized that once it is established that the assessee is liable to pay, the liability cannot be refused during recovery proceedings based on a different status claimed by the assessee.

The court noted that the assessment order identified the assessee as Mohammad Shafiq, the petitioner, who was carrying on the biri manufacturing business under the name of the Mazdoor Biri Parishad. The court concluded that based on this assessment, Mohammad Shafiq was liable to pay the sales tax demanded, as he was the identified assessee. The court highlighted that if the petitioner had grievances regarding the assessment, he should have pursued revision or appeal against the assessment order, rather than challenging it during recovery proceedings. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner could not contest his status as the assessee in the recovery proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the sales tax recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The court ruled in favor of the sales tax authorities, emphasizing that the petitioner, as identified in the assessment order, was liable to pay the sales tax demanded. The court also imposed costs on the petitioner for the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment reiterates the principle that the status of the assessee is determined during assessment proceedings and cannot be contested during recovery proceedings. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the findings of the assessment order and pursuing appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved by the assessment, rather than challenging it in subsequent recovery proceedings.