9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Orissa Sales Tax Act carrying on business of supply of machineries and equipments. He closed down his business by making an application to opposite party No. 1 on 4th September, 1972. To the best of his memory he had no sales tax dues outstanding on him. On 30th March, 1977 opposite party No. 1 submitted a requisition for certificate under the Act stating therein that a sum of Rs. 26,295.34 was outstanding against him as arrears of sales tax dues for quarters ending with 30th June, 1964 up to 30th September, 1972. On the basis of requisition a certificate proceeding was drawn up against him and a certificate of public demand (annexure 2) was drawn up by opposite party No. 3. It is averred that annexures 1 and 2 suffer from the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter-affidavit stated that the certificate proceeding was drawn up in accordance with law on the requisition of opposite party No. 1 (annexure 1). There was no manner of defect in drawing up the certificate of demand (annexure 2). The petitioner did not produce proof that arrears of sales tax dues were not outstanding against him and that he had cleared up the same. No part of the claim was barred by limitation. The petitioner cannot avoid payment of the amount demanded which is the revenue of the State Government. 4.. At the outset I would dispose of a petition for amendment of the writ petition filed as late as on 24th June, 1988. The writ petition was filed on 20th October, 1981. The petition for amendment was filed almost seven years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Kapileswar Pradhan 37 (1972) CLT 948 it was held that the certificate issued should always be in proper form and all particulars of the public demand should be clearly stated in it. In that particular case details of the demand raised were not clear and, therefore, the certificate was not sustained. In the case of Orissa Corporation Private Ltd. 1974 (1) CWR 642 it was held that proceedings under the Act are very strict in nature. Mistake in the form in regard to a material particular vitiates the proceeding. In the case of Bhagaban Charan Nayak 65 (1988) CLT 505 the legal proposition laid down in the case of Mahadeblal Agarwalla ILR (1958) Cut 315 and some other cases was reiterated. But in that case the certificate furnished by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat no part of the demand was barred by limitation. It is to be remembered that this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India in its supervisory jurisdiction will not act as a court of appeal and will not interfere with the findings of fact of a court or tribunal unless it is palpably on the face of it perverse (see AIR 1984 SC 38, Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim). Mr. A.B. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for the Sales Tax Department, pointed out that on the face of it, the order of opposite party No. 4 cannot be said to be perverse and based on no material. In the aforesaid view of the matter, therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the order (annexure 3). The contention of Mr. Mohapatra has no force. 7.. Before I close ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
