1999 (2) TMI 644 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of garnishee proceeding under section 57 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.
2. Initiation of garnishee proceeding in the trade name of the proprietorship concern instead of the name of the actual assessee.

Analysis:
1. The applicant challenged the validity of the garnishee proceeding initiated under section 57 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The contention was that the garnishee proceeding should not have been initiated before the disposal of the stay petition pending before the appellate authority. The applicant argued that if the money is deposited with the Revenue as directed in the garnishee proceeding, the purpose of preferring an appeal and the application for stay would become infructuous.

2. The second contention raised was regarding the initiation of the garnishee proceeding in the trade name of the proprietorship concern instead of the name of the actual assessee. The State Representative acknowledged the mistake in describing the dealerassessee in the notice issued on the bank account and agreed that an amendment was required. However, it was argued that since the bank account was maintained in the trade name, it was used for identification purposes.

3. The Tribunal observed that the garnishee proceeding should have been initiated in the name of the actual assessee and not just in the trade name alone. It was suggested that an additional description of the actual assessee as the proprietor of the concern could aid in the proper identification of the bank account. The Tribunal decided to set aside the notice issued on the bank and directed that the stay petition should be heard and disposed of by the appellate authority promptly.

4. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to dispose of the application immediately without the need for exchange of affidavits. The impugned notice issued on the bank was set aside, and any attachment made was declared to be no longer valid. It was further directed that the stay petition should be dealt with by the appellate authority as scheduled, and the appropriate authority would be able to proceed according to the law after the stay petition's disposal.

5. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed an error in the application regarding the amount of tax demanded, permitting the applicant to rectify the mistake. No costs were awarded, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.