2021 (11) TMI 943 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Attachment of property of petitioner - seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in attaching her property under the guise of the said notice as illegal and arbitrary - Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 - Whether the petitioner has got the locus standi and whether there exists any cause of action to challenge the notice titled Demand prior to attachment of land dated 30.01.2006 issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Khammam? - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, as per the version of the petitioner herself, the property was got registered in her name in the year 2006. Of course, her version is also that she came into possession of the property through irrevocable General Power of Attorney in the year 2003 and therefore, she got mutated her name in the relevant revenue records. The General Power of Attorney would not confer any title to the property and even if the contention of the petitioner that she got title to the property in the year 2003 has to be believed upon, there may not be any necessity to get the property registered in her name in the year 2006. That itself goes to show that the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property in the year 2006 - the petitioner herself in the written representation submitted to respondent No.2, which forms part of record and which was submitted by the petitioner herself, made a mention that by paying the balance sale consideration, she got the property registered in her name on 15.02.2006. Undisputedly, the impugned notice was issued on 30.01.2006. Thus, by the said date, no cause of action accrued to the petitioner. Even subsequently also, there is no cause of action for the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner without any cause of action. Whether the petitioner has made out a case to grant the relief sought for by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT - The law is well settled that in appropriate cases in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, where there is violation of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of any Act is under challenge - In the case on hand, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to restrain a competent authority from performing his duties which he is bound to perform under the statute. As such, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. This Court concludes that the relief sought for cannot be granted invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which should be exercised only in appropriate and befitting cases - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Locus standi and cause of action to challenge the notice dated 30.01.2006 issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act.
2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case to grant the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Locus standi and cause of action
The petitioner claimed to be the lawful owner of a house part of the subject property under the impugned notice. The petitioner argued that she had no connection with the tax liability and that the attachment of her property was illegal and arbitrary. Respondent contended that the property was rightfully attached under the Revenue Recovery Act due to tax arrears. The court analyzed the facts and determined that the petitioner lacked a cause of action as the property was registered in her name after the notice was issued, thus no legal basis existed for challenging the notice.

Issue 2: Relief under Article 226
The notice in question was a demand notice under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, which was a prerequisite before attachment of land. The court clarified that the notice was merely a demand and not an actual attachment. The petitioner sought relief to declare the attachment as illegal, but as no attachment had occurred, the court found no grounds for the relief sought. Additionally, the court highlighted that the High Court's writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to restrain a competent authority from performing statutory duties. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as the relief sought could not be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim stay, and closed any pending miscellaneous petitions without costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing a cause of action and the limitations of invoking writ jurisdiction in cases where competent authorities are performing their statutory duties.