9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the 1st respondent to the petitioner's bank and the instructions said to have been issued by the 3rd respondent to M/s. Kedia Vanaspathi Limited to stop payment of Rs. 3,22,251 to the petitioner pursuant to its bill dated September 19, 1995. When this writ petition came up for admission on October 10, 1995, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes placed before us the relevant file for showing that the impugned attachments were made in exercise of the powers under section 17-B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"), after obtaining the previous approval of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The learned Government Pleader sought time for filing a counter-affidavit stating all the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a period of six months from the date of the order made under subsection (1): Provided that the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit, so, however, that the total period of extension shall not in any case exceed two years." We find the language plain and unambiguous. The first requirement under this provision is that the assessing authority should form an opinion during the pendency of any proceeding for the assessment of any turnover or for the assessment or reassessment of any turnover which escaped assessment. In the present case, it is stated that proceedings are pending in respect of assessment year 1994-95. The second requirement i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Deputy Commissioner the Commissioner gave his approval to him. That approval was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent on October 6, 1995, with instructions to make the provisional attachments, pursuant to which the provisional attachments impugned in the present writ petition were made by the 1st and 3rd respondents. It is obvious therefore, and the learned Government Pleader could not but accept, that the assessing authority, that is, the 1st respondent herein, had not formed any opinion of his own as required under section 17-B of the Act and he had not moved the Commissioner for the requisite previous approval for making the impugned attachments. The learned counsel for the petitioner also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
