1982 (4) TMI 271 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of the third respondent to issue distraint order under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Dispute regarding the quantum of tax and differences in figures in the distraint orders.
3. Allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition lacking specificity and clarity.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the legality of a Form No. III notice issued by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner argued that the third respondent, who issued a distraint order, was not competent under the Act. However, the petition did not specifically attack the distraint order nor provide clear allegations in the affidavit to support this claim. The court noted that without precise grounds of attack, it could not investigate the competency issue raised orally during arguments. The absence of specific allegations hindered a thorough examination of the competency of the third respondent.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about discrepancies in the quantum of tax between two distraint orders. The court acknowledged the differences but highlighted that the petitioner had been paying tax dues, and the latest distraint order provided further details. The court found that the discrepancies were not substantial and did not indicate a significant disparity. The petitioner's argument regarding the unpaid sum of Rs. 10,170 was deemed addressable through proper channels by notifying the authorities and seeking a reduction in the claimed tax amount.

3. The court criticized the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition for lacking specificity and clarity in the grounds of attack. The court emphasized the importance of precise and explicit affidavits in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Vagueness and ambiguity were deemed unacceptable, and the court highlighted the necessity for clear articulation of grievances to enable the opposite party to respond adequately. Due to the affidavit's confusion and lack of clear grounds, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for unambiguous and well-defined allegations in such proceedings.