1981 (10) TMI 161 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over adjustment of sales tax dues and payments made by petitioners.
2. Direction sought to refrain from realizing amounts in recovery certificates without adjudicating on adjustment claims.
3. Dispute over payments mentioned in recovery certificates.
4. Contention regarding responsibility of department to encash bank drafts and cheque.
5. Dispute over payment made to authorized person for tax collection.
6. Request to sell attached properties in separate lots.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, partners of a firm, were in dispute with the department regarding the adjustment of certain payments alleged to have been made by them against sales tax dues. The Sales Tax Officer issued recovery certificates due to non-payment. The petitioners sought direction to refrain from realizing amounts without adjudicating on their adjustment claims.

2. The Sales Tax Officer examined the claim for adjustment and provided adjustment for several payments made by the petitioners. However, there was a dispute over specific payments mentioned in the recovery certificates. The Officer did not grant adjustment for certain items as the petitioners failed to prove these payments were received by the department.

3. The disputed payments included amounts paid via bank drafts and cheques, where the department disputed receiving the payments. The petitioners argued that the responsibility to encash bank drafts and cheques rested with the department, seeking credit for these payments. Similarly, a payment made to an authorized person for tax collection was also disputed.

4. The Court found the evidence on record insufficient to determine conclusively whether the disputed payments were received by the department. It was suggested that if the petitioners had grievances regarding these amounts, they should pursue remedies such as filing a suit for accounts or declaration.

5. Another relief sought was the request to sell the attached properties in separate lots rather than collectively. The department argued that selling movable properties in separate lots would increase expenses and reduce the amount realized. The Court held that there was no obligation to sell properties piecemeal and ordered all attached properties to be sold in a single auction, with the petitioners entitled to adjustment after deducting auction expenses.

6. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed, and the stay order was discharged.