1988 (7) TMI 383 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to requisition for certificate, certificate of public demand, appellate order, review order, amendment of writ petition, arithmetical mistake in certificate demand, limitation period for demand, sufficiency of evidence regarding outstanding sales tax dues.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the requisition for certificate, certificate of public demand, appellate order, and review order under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, closed his business and denied having any outstanding sales tax dues. The petitioner raised objections to the requisition and certificate, citing vagueness, incorrect description of the certificate-holder, and incomplete filling of columns. The objections were overruled, leading to a warrant of attachment being issued. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and a review petition was also rejected. The court directed a rehearing of the appeal, which resulted in dismissal. The petitioner contended an arithmetical mistake in the certificate demand and argued for its quashing based on precedents emphasizing the importance of proper form in such certificates.

The court addressed the arithmetical error in the certificate demand and found it not to be a material defect as the essential details were correctly stated. The court referenced past judgments highlighting the strict construction of certificate demands but concluded that in this case, apart from the arithmetical error, no material defects existed. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the limitation period for the demand, upholding the findings of the lower authority. The court emphasized that unless a finding is palpably perverse, it will not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner's failure to provide evidence to refute the outstanding sales tax dues, coupled with an unsubstantiated claim of document destruction, was deemed insufficient. The court stressed the importance of not allowing individuals to evade legitimate government dues based on vague pleas.

Regarding the petition for amending the writ petition, the court rejected it due to the belated filing and the nature of the proposed amendments being argued already. Ultimately, the court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the writ petition, with no costs awarded.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Gopalaswamy agreed with the dismissal of the writ petition, thereby upholding the decision of the court.