9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1948. Ultimately on 21st May, 1958, the Sales Tax Officer passed an assessment order for this year assessing the petitioner to sales tax of Rs. 4,19,322-2-3. The petitioner was not satisfied with the assessment order. It went up in appeal. On 17th July, 1961, the appeal was allowed, the assessment order was set aside and the matter was sent back to the Assessment Officer for proceeding afresh. The petitioner was not satisfied with the appellate order and it filed a revision against it. By an order dated 15th September, 1964, passed by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Judge (Appeals) for rehearing. The result of this order was that the assessment order which was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting aside of the assessment order in appeal. The revisional order dated 15th September, 1964, set aside the appellate order. Thereby the existence of the original assessment order dated 21st May, 1958, revived. This petition was filed on 2nd December, 1964. On this day there was an assessment order in existence and hence even if the petitioner's argument is accepted on merits, he will not be entitled to any relief. The decision of the question whether the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the advance tax between the dates of the appellate order and the order in revision is merely academic. For the year 1956-57 the petitioner had deposited Rs. 4,12,378 as advance tax. On 27th May, 1960, the assessment order for this year was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. The Sales Tax Officer on 30th of July, 1963, rejected this application (See annexure B to the rejoinder-affidavit). For all these reasons the petitioner stopped payment of further monthly instalments. As the payment of instalments was stopped by the petitioner the Sales Tax Authorities imposed a penalty on the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 32,715. On 5th August, 1964, the Collector addressed a letter to one of the petitioner's directors informing him that a sum of Rs. 3.17 lakhs is in arrear as sales tax against the petitioner-company and inviting the company to send a proposal for liquidating the arrear by the end of March, 1966. The petitioner's representative appears to have discussed the matter with the Collector and ultimately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , nothing further need be paid about it. The petitioner approached the Collector and reminded him of the solemn agreement entered into by him with the petitioner-company, but the Collector did not agree to adhere to the agreement. By the communication dated 13th November, 1964, the petitioner was informed that "in supersession of all previous orders on the subject the following plan of payment is proposed to be enforced with immediate effect: 1.. The company shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,00 lac by 30th November, 1964. 2.. For the remaining four months up to March, 1965, the company shall pay at Rs. 50,000 per month. 3.. In case of default of payment in any month the company shall render itself liable for recovery of entire dues in lump sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirements of Article 299(1) of the Constitution. This articles provides that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive authority of a State shall be expressed to be made by the Governor of the State and shall be executed on behalf of the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise. The contract therefore must be expressed to be made in the name and on behalf of the Governor. In the instant case there is no such formal contract. The learned counsel has urged that this omission will not render the contract void and of no effect and if the Government is shown to have satisfied it by its conduct, it will be enforceable. He has relied upon the following observations of Bose, J., in the case of Chatt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree-holder. Order XX, rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, authorises the Court which passes the decree to grant an order for instalments on the application of the judgment-debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder. In this case the Sales Tax Officer had passed the assessment order, the demand created whereunder is sought to be recovered. The Sales Tax Officer would be in the position of the court which passes the decree. The order dated 18th September, 1964, has not been passed by the Sales Tax Officer, but by the Additional Collector, who was acting as the recovery authority. Prima facie Order XX, rule II, Civil Procedure Code, will not be applicable to the recovery authorities as they are comparable to the execution Courts. But, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
