2001 (2) TMI 993 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of revenue recovery proceedings against immovable properties.
2. Contention of partnership in the business.
3. Disposal of objections and representations by revenue authorities.
4. Validity of orders passed by subordinate authorities.
5. Mode of attachment and possession of property during revenue recovery proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged revenue recovery proceedings for arrears of sales tax on their property. The main issue was the contention of the 1st petitioner regarding her partnership in the business, which the respondents claimed based on documents produced by her son. The 1st petitioner alleged her signature was forged, and the matter required examination by the authorities due to the bar on suits for sales tax arrears.

2. The petitioners claimed joint rights over the property with their deceased brother, supported by documents like a settlement deed and conveyance executed by the brother. However, the objections raised were not adequately addressed by the revenue authorities, leading to a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner remanded the case to the District Collector due to procedural violations, but subsequent actions by the Tahsildar were challenged by the petitioners.

3. The court emphasized the statutory remedy available to challenge the orders passed by subordinate revenue authorities. The petitioners were directed to file revisions before the Commissioner, who would consider the disputed aspects raised in the original petitions. The court refrained from intervening directly, highlighting the need for proper adjudication by the designated authority.

4. Specific directions were given for each original petition regarding the disposal of pending representations and objections by the District Collector and Tahsildar. The court stressed the importance of issuing speaking orders within a specified timeframe, ensuring all parties were heard and provided with opportunities to present relevant documents.

5. Regarding the mode of attachment and possession of the property during revenue recovery proceedings, the court noted that the Revenue Recovery Act prescribed a specific procedure involving affixing notices and serving copies to the defaulters. Any actions beyond these provisions, such as sealing and possessing the building, were deemed unjustified. The court ordered the re-delivery of the building to the 1st petitioner and maintained status quo on the revenue recovery proceedings, except for restoring possession to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issues surrounding revenue recovery proceedings, partnership contentions, procedural violations, and property possession during such proceedings. It emphasized adherence to statutory remedies, proper adjudication by designated authorities, and the importance of following prescribed procedures under the Revenue Recovery Act.