9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, Faridabad, defendant No. 4 in the suit. The case of the plaintiff was that he never stood surety for defendant No. 4 but had simply signed surety bond brought to him by defendant No. 4 on June 27, 1985. The Sales Tax Department issued notice to the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of sales tax to the extent of Rs. 1,63,537 under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and Rs. 4,74,500 under the Central Sales Tax Act. Thus impugned notices dated January 3, 1996 was followed by another summon dated Janu ary 22, 1996 issued by defendant No. 3 in the suit. The plaintiff challenged these notices and summons obviously based upon the orders of assessment, which have been passed under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to such orders before the appropriate forum/ authority. Whether defendant No. 4 had obtained the signatures of the plaintiff for the purpose of applying and securing the sales tax number or was it submitting as surety bond is primarily a matter between defendant No. 4 and the plaintiff in the suit. The action of the respondentauthorities could hardly be questioned, as it was recovery in furtherance to the assessment order passed in accordance with law. The Legislature in its wisdom has barred the jurisdiction of the civil court under the provision of section 62(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and such bar cannot be permitted to be defeated by adopting such indirect method of stopping the recovery of the revenue. It is settled prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainability of the suit in relation to the powers exercised by the authorities concerned within the provisions of the Act. It cannot be said on the facts and circumstances of the case that the action of the respondent is without jurisdiction or is outside the purview of the statutory provision. The notice and summons issued cannot be termed as illegal or non est, ex facie. 9.. The plaintiff has already filed replies to the show cause notices and it is for the authorities concerned, which are exercising powers under the statute to come to a conclusion in accordance with law. 10.. The learned trial court has rightly applied the ratio of Dhulabhai case [1968] 22 STC 416 (SC), in holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
