9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1960 (12) TMI 68 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether section 19 must be taken to prevail over section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act? Held that - Appeal allowed. Section 19, in addition to recovery of the amount, gives the power to the Magistrate to convict and sentence the offender to fine or in default of payment of fine, to imprisonment. In our opinion, neither of the remedies for recovery is destructive of the other, because if two remedies are open, both can be resorted to, at the option of the authorities recovering the amount. Unless the statute in express words or by necessary implication laid down that one remedy was to the exclusion of the other, the observations of Mahmood, J., quoted above must apply. In our opinion, in the absence of any such provision in the Act, both the remedies were open to the authorities, and they could resort to any one of them at their option.
Issues:
Appeal against judgment of High Court of Kerala in a writ of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding recovery of sales tax arrears under Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, XI of 1125 and Criminal Procedure Code. Interpretation of sections 13 and 19 of the Act in relation to recovery procedures. Analysis: The case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of the High Court of Kerala regarding the recovery of sales tax arrears under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, XI of 1125. The respondents, a partnership firm and its partners, were assessed to sales tax for the years 1950 to 1954 and were required to pay a substantial amount as tax. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against them under section 13 of the Act for recovery of the outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue. Additionally, a prosecution under section 19 of the Act was conducted, resulting in the partners being sentenced to pay a fine and the arrears to be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by the Court. The firm filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of prohibition against the recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The main contention was that since warrants were issued by the Magistrate under section 19, the procedure under section 13 for recovery was no longer available. The High Court held that the special procedure under section 19 of the Act, in conjunction with the Code of Criminal Procedure, was to prevail over the general provisions of section 13 for recovery of arrears. However, the High Court did not conclusively decide the outcome if proceedings under section 19 were unsuccessful. The High Court granted the writ of prohibition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of sections 13 and 19 of the Act and emphasized that both sections provided for the recovery of arrears through attachment and sale of properties. The Court opined that neither remedy was exclusive of the other, and authorities could choose to utilize either method for recovery at their discretion. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. Despite the respondents' absence, the Court ordered them to bear the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the High Court. The decision clarified that both the procedures under sections 13 and 19 of the Act were available for recovery of arrears, and authorities could opt for either method based on their preference. The judgment highlighted the absence of any provision in the Act excluding one remedy over the other, affirming the concurrent applicability of both recovery mechanisms.
|
