9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to notice of sale under the Revenue Recovery Act 2. Declaration of unenforceability of arrears of agricultural income-tax based on assessment orders 3. Maintainability of the original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 4. Allegation of assessment orders being passed without notice 5. Lack of cooperation with the Department by the petitioner 6. Suppression of material facts by the petitioner 7. Issuance of notice of sale under the Revenue Recovery Act 8. Material suppression of facts and lack of bona fides in approaching the court Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the exhibit P-16 notice of sale issued under section 49(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. The court noted that the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies available and had delayed challenging the assessment orders from 1975-76 to 1990-91. The petition was deemed not maintainable due to laches. 2. The petitioner sought a declaration that the respondents were not entitled to demand arrears of agricultural income-tax based on assessment orders from 1975-76 to 1990-91. The court found that the petitioner had not cooperated with the Department, as evidenced by not filing returns for several years and not responding to pre-assessment notices. The stand of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was upheld. 3. The court held that the original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable as the assessments for sixteen different years could not be challenged collectively. The petitioner's argument of not being served with notices was refuted based on evidence of service provided by the Department. 4. The petitioner alleged that assessment orders were passed without notice. However, the court found that the petitioner had been legally served with all notices and orders from 1975 to 1991, contradicting the petitioner's claim of lack of communication from statutory authorities. 5. It was established that the petitioner did not cooperate with the Department by not availing opportunities to file objections to pre-assessment notices. The petitioner's lack of cooperation was evident from the assessment orders, leading to the dismissal of the petition on grounds of suppression of material facts. 6. The court highlighted the petitioner's suppression of material facts, including the non-disclosure of earlier served notices and land transfers. Citing precedent, the court emphasized the duty of full disclosure when invoking the court's jurisdiction and dismissed the petition due to the lack of bona fides. 7. The exhibit P-16 notice of sale under the Revenue Recovery Act was issued to recover sales tax arrears. The court noted the issuance and service of notices, as well as the subsequent auction proceedings, which were not mentioned in the original petition, indicating material suppression of facts. 8. Considering the material suppression of facts and lack of bona fides in approaching the court, the petition was deemed not maintainable and dismissed with costs. The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure and honesty when seeking relief through legal channels.
|
