9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. was nationalised under Act 97 of 1976 and by virtue of the provisions of that Act, with effect from 1st April, 1975, the undertaking, i.e., the assets only of Burn Company Ltd. and the right, title and interest of the said company in relation to the undertaking stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government. The appointed day fixed under the Act under section 2(a) was 1st April, 1975. It is claimed that by virtue of section 5(1) and (3)(a), (b) and (c) of Act 97 of 1976, every liability of Burn Co. Ltd., in respect of any period prior to the appointed day became the liability of the concerned company, i.e., Burn Co. Ltd., and not either the Central Government or the petitioner-company, which is known as Burn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is stated that for the year 1974-75 a demand was made on Burn Co., which was the assessee on the file of the third respondent and that it was duly served on the petitioner-company on 29th November, 1977. In the meanwhile, since an appeal had been preferred, the fourth respondent was approached under section 26 read with rule 18(8) for payment of the amount due, as no stay had been obtained by the petitioner. After receipt of the letter from the petitioner-company dated 19th August, 1978, stating that the newly formed company has no carry over liability of the previous company, the Commissioner of payments constituted under Act 97 of 1976 was approached, but he turned down the request for payment of arrears of tax on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. The third respondent had no jurisdiction to treat the petitioner as a "dealer" under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and to demand payment of sales tax for the period prior to 1st April, 1975. On behalf of the Government Pleader, the contention taken is that, for prior periods, particularly for five years, when the petitioner-company had come forward to pay the arrears of sales tax the objection taken for this assessment year alone is baseless. It is not what has been done by the petitioner-company during the earlier years that is relevant, when the petitioner-company came forward to challenge the right of the third respondent to claim payment of arrears of tax in the face of what has been provided under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also against the petitioner-company. It is not disputed that two such orders have been passed. There is no provision made in the Sales Tax Act for making simultaneously two assessments for the same assessment year, in respect of the same transactions. Either the third respondent should have confined himself to one or the other assessment, and he cannot proceed against both the companies by having parallel assessment orders, which is an illegal course and which is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. There is yet another point taken based on section 18 of Act 97 of 1976. Section 18 contemplates priorities to be given by the Commissioner while disbursement of the amounts collected by him. This section cannot be relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
