9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns like jowar, millets, maize, etc. The petitioner s firm was granted registration under section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as the Act ) in the month of September, 1992. Petitioner sells goods to other dealers in other States and the consignment of goods meant for delivery to non-resident dealers was accompanied by way bills issued by the department and a sale bill. The petitioner has two current accounts with second and third respondents and when he visited the 3rd respondent-bank on February 4, 1993 for operating his bank account, he was informed by the staff that a garnishee notice under section 17 of the Act has been served by the 1st respondent on the 3rd respondent and as per the contents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been satisfied and therefore the notice issued to respondents 2 to 5 is illegal and without jurisdiction. 4.. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Laxmi Cement Ltd. v. Assessing Authority, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer [1989] 75 STC 460. He also brought to our notice the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Purbanchal Bricks Industries v. State of Tripura [1990] 79 STC 123. In view of these decisions, learned counsel, submits that since the petitioner has not become a defaulter the notice issued under section 17 is without jurisdiction. 5.. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Sales Tax Department, it is stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attitude to the notices issued and keeping the business premises closed without notifying any change of his address to the department. It is also stated that but for the vigilance by the department, the turnover would not have been detected and the tax involved would have been evaded. As such, the respondent No. 1 constrained to pass final provisional orders together with a demand for Rs. 3,99,247 by order dated January 29, 1993 as no purpose could be served in further granting time particularly keeping in view the fraudulent acts and non-compliance of the notices issued to the petitioner. Keeping in view the huge tax involvement coupled with the fraudulent conduct of the dealer, the 1st respondent was constrained to take garnishee notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Allahabad High Court and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, service of notice by affixture can be resorted to only after personal delivery or by sending it by registered post cannot be accepted, as on the facts of the present case, the petitioner himself appeared before the 1st respondent on January 29, 1993 in pursuance of the affixture of notice on January 28, 1993. We are, therefore, of the view that the contention of the petitioner that notice by affixture should be adopted only after an attempt is made to serve the notice by personal delivery or by registered post does not merit consideration. 8.. The next contention of the petitioner is that resort to section 17 of the Act can be made only in respect of arrears of tax, intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, generally a time of 15 days is given to the dealer to make payment of tax demanded, and only in exceptional cases can the assessing authority call upon the dealer to pay the demand forthwith or within a period shorter than 15 days and any such period will be reckoned from the date of service. The third and fourth notices of demand were dated February 15, 1988, and service thereof was effected on February 19, 1988. There was no question therefore, of service of notices under section 11-A on February 18, 1988. Moreover, since the first and second notices of demand allowed 7 and 15 days time respectively for payment, no notice could be issued under section 11-A before the expiry of the time allowed. The impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conduct of the petitioner the 1st respondent is justified in resorting to section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court is therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case. We may also point out that in Purbanchal Bricks Industries v. State of Tripura [1990] 79 STC 123 the Gauhati High Court held that: Section 26A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, provides a machinery for the Revenue to collect arrears of tax due from the debtors of the defaulting dealer, by garnishee proceedings. The said section was enacted with a view to providing for a speedy and easy process of realisation of dues from the defaulting dealers. This special mode of recovery of tax is in addition to tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
