1986 (5) TMI 256 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding attachment and sale of residential property for recovery of arrears of sales tax and penalty.
2. Applicability of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recovery proceedings under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
3. Distinction between recovery under different statutes and the immunity from attachment and sale of residential property.
4. Consideration of provisions of section 88 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in relation to the applicability of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of attaching and selling a residential building to recover arrears of sales tax and penalties under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The controversy arose when a firm was held liable for payment, and the property in question, a shop-cum-flat, was transferred to avoid sale for recovery. The contention was raised that the property, being residential, was exempt from attachment and sale under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a claim rejected by both lower courts.

The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Dina Nath, emphasizing that section 60 of the Code does not automatically apply to attachment and sale under all statutes unless expressly provided. As the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, lacks such a provision, the petitioner could not claim immunity under section 60. The counsel's attempt to distinguish the precedent was deemed meritless, as the law is clear that specific provisions in the relevant Act are necessary for section 60 to apply.

Furthermore, reference was made to section 88 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, arguing that since revenue courts follow the Code of Civil Procedure, section 60 should apply. However, the court clarified that this provision only pertains to procedural aspects and does not automatically incorporate section 60 into all Acts for revenue recovery.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the lower appellate court's decision, affirming that no immunity from attachment or sale exists for a residential house in the recovery of amounts due under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The revision was dismissed, with no costs awarded.