Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (2) TMI 289 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of the notice proposing auction of the petitioner's house for recovery of misappropriated funds without fixed liability and jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to sell immovable property. Analysis: The petitioner, a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, faced disciplinary proceedings for misappropriation of government funds. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, leading to his dismissal from service. Subsequently, a notice proposing auction of the petitioner's house for recovery of the misappropriated amount was issued. The petitioner contested the notice's validity, arguing that the liability amount was not fixed. However, the final government order clearly determined the liability at Rs. 34,912.88, refuting the petitioner's claim of ambiguity in the liability amount. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to sell immovable property, the government relied on Section 17-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, empowering Deputy Commercial Tax Officers to sell property for recovery of amounts due under the Act. This provision negated the petitioner's argument against the officer's jurisdiction to sell the property for recovery purposes. The petitioner also contended that no demand notice was issued for the ascertained amount. The government argued that the notice served on the petitioner informed him of the proposed recovery action, giving him an opportunity to clear the amount. As the petitioner failed to make the payment, the government was entitled to initiate recovery proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, for the ascertained amount of Rs. 34,912.88, with interest. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the government to proceed with recovery under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, for the determined amount, emphasizing the petitioner's obligation to pay the outstanding sum.
|