9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 553 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery of arrears of tax - Power of Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court to attach the property through FLW through Commissioner, BBMP - assessing authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay Sales Tax at 12% on sale of food articles - HELD THAT - There are no dispute with regard to the fact that the recovery proceedings is initiated based on the order. When the petition is filed before the learned Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court invoking Section 421 of Cr.P.C., issued the warrant and the same is as per Section 421(2) of Cr.P.C., which says only the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property not the Commissioner, BBMP. When such being the case, the order requires an interference of this Court since the Commissioner of BBMP., has no any authority to attach the property as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and the same can be enforced under Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, through the collector of the District. The petition is allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of attachment of property through BBMP Commissioner under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Analysis: The petitioner, a catering business registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, challenged an order passed by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court for levying sales tax on food sales. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority erroneously imposed a tax of ?35,25,376 despite the exemption under the Act. The respondent initiated recovery proceedings due to non-payment, leading to the attachment order of a property. The petitioner argued that the order was invalid as it was executed through the BBMP Commissioner, not an authorized officer under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the discrepancy, citing Section 421 of Cr.P.C., which authorizes the District Collector, not the BBMP Commissioner, to attach property for recovery of dues. The respondent's stand was that the order was justified since the amount remained unpaid. After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court found that the order of attachment through the BBMP Commissioner was unauthorized under Section 421(2) of Cr.P.C. The Court concluded that the Commissioner lacked the authority to execute the attachment, emphasizing that only the District Magistrate could carry out such actions under the law. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order of the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court dated 26.07.2012. The respondent was granted the liberty to pursue appropriate orders in accordance with Section 421(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the necessity of involving authorized officers in executing orders related to property attachment for recovery purposes under the relevant statutes.
|
