1981 (10) TMI 170 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to distraint notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act.
2. Interpretation of section 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Exclusivity of remedies under clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 24.

Analysis:
The petitioners, who are assessees under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, challenged a distraint notice issued by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act. The respondents had initiated action to recover taxes for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioners contended that the authority cannot simultaneously pursue remedies under both clauses (a) and (b) of section 24(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that if an application is being prosecuted under section 24(2)(b) before a Magistrate, the process under section 24(2)(a) should be excluded. The counsel relied on a judgment by Sadasivayya, J., supporting this interpretation. The court agreed with this construction of the provision.

The court examined section 24(2) of the Act, emphasizing that even after an amendment in 1980, clauses (a) and (b) remained unaltered. It noted that the two remedies under the provision are distinct and separate, with the word "or" indicating exclusion between the two. Referring to legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, the court held that unless expressly provided, one remedy does not exclude the other. However, in the absence of such provision in the Act, the court concluded that the authority cannot simultaneously pursue remedies under both clauses (a) and (b) of section 24(2).

A factual dispute arose regarding the pending status of proceedings under section 24(2)(b) of the Act. While the petitioners claimed the proceedings were ongoing, the Government Pleader stated they had been withdrawn. Despite this, the court directed the first respondent not to concurrently pursue remedies under both clauses (a) and (b) of section 24(2) but allowed the authority to choose one remedy at a time. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering accordingly and decided there would be no cost implications in the matter.