1979 (9) TMI 186 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to sales tax assessment and penalty imposed.
2. Competency of the Deputy Tahsildar to issue notice under section 7.
3. Validity of orders under article 286 of the Constitution.
4. Authority of authorities under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to collect revenue for another State.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the sales tax assessment and penalty imposed, arguing that they were null and void under article 286 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner failed to raise this contention before the appropriate authorities in Bombay. Even if the orders were void, the petitioner should have promptly approached the court to have them declared void by due process of law. An order, though void, remains effective until challenged and declared invalid by a competent body or court.

2. The contention regarding the competency of the Deputy Tahsildar to issue the notice under section 7 was rejected by the court. It was held that the Collector, as the competent authority under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is entitled to delegate power, as established in previous court decisions.

3. The court addressed the issue of the validity of orders under article 286 of the Constitution. It emphasized that orders, even if invalid, remain effective against the petitioner if the right remedy was not sought at the right time in the right forum. The court discussed the distinction between void and voidable orders and highlighted the presumption of validity until challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction.

4. The final contention was regarding the authority of authorities under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to collect revenue for another State. The court clarified that the Act empowers a Collector of a district in one State to collect amounts due to a Collector of a district in another State based on a certificate issued by the latter. The court endorsed a previous decision that supported this interpretation, emphasizing the applicability of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, across the country.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the original petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was reminded of its rights under section 4 of Act 1 of 1890 to seek repayment in certain cases, indicating that such rights were not disputed in the case.