9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1, Sales Tax Officer, against them and the proclamations at annexures A/1, A/2 and A/6 to A/10 under section 165 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, for public auction of the properties which were attached for realisation of the sales tax dues on the basis of the garnishee provisions of section 48 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The respondent No. 1 had proceeded against the petitioners under section 48 of the Act in respect of the amount which was due to be paid by the firm in which the petitioners were partners, i.e., M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal to the dealer M/s. Patel Babulal Parsottamdas, also of Mehsana, which firm was in arrears of sales tax dues. 2.1. Special C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Babulal Parsottamdas and therefore, the sales tax dues could be recovered by issuing notice under section 48 of the Act. The amount was less than the arrears of sales tax recoverable from the dealer-firm, which amounted to Rs. 14,64,600. According to the respondents, as stated in their affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner No. 5-Ugarbhai had appeared on January 12, 1983, before the Sales Tax Officer pursuant to a notice and admitted in writing the liability of the debtor-firm and gave an assurance that the amount would be paid up. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions, taking up similar stand. 5.. Under section 48 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 a special mode of recovery of the sales tax dues ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal in which the petitioners were partners owed to the dealer a sum of Rs. 3,95,773. Proceedings were, therefore, initiated under section 48 of the said Act for recovery of that amount. These proceedings are in the nature of garnishee proceedings. A notice under section 48 of the Act was served on the firm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal on June 21, 1982. Since it did not respond, another notice was served on January 11, 1983 on the petitioner No. 5-Ugarabhai who was one of the partners of the firm, requiring him to attend the sales tax office on January 12, 1983 with the books of account of the firm, relating to the S.Y. 2038 and S.Y. 2039. The petitioner No. 5-Ugarabhai attended the sales tax office pursu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Since the notice was served on the firm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal on June 21, 1982, it becomes clear that the payment was made to the dealer-firm M/s. Patel Babulal Parsottamdas on July 16, 1982, to ward off the liability arising under section 48 of the said Act. Such a subsequent payment to the dealer after the receipt of the notice under section 48 did not absolve the firm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal of its liability to pay the amount, which was payable by it to M/s. Patel Babulal Parsottamdas, to the Commissioner. There is therefore no substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. 7.. From the facts on record, it is clear that the impugned action of the respondents was justified and taken in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
