9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is none other than the father of the fourth respondent. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the APGST Act ). The fourth respondent was doing business in kirana items in the name and style of Nageswara Enterprises at Tadepalligudem. He applied for and obtained registration certificate from the Commercial Tax Department. Admittedly, the petitioner herein stood as surety undertaking to pay the taxes, if any, payable by the fourth respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a surety bond. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. V. L. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the writ petitioner is not a defaulter within the meaning of Revenue Recovery Act and therefore no proceedings could have been initiated against him for realisation of the arrears of tax payable by the fourth respondent. It is also submitted that the liability of the writ petitioner, if at all, is restricted to an amount equal to the tax payable under the APGST Act for a year and not more than that. The facts are not in dispute. The fourth respondent with a view to get himself registered as a dealer submitted an application for registration to the registering authority in accordance with the rules known as Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount equal to tax payable under the APGST Act for a year and not more than that. In the instant case, the impugned notice directs the petitioner to pay the tax for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 as well as penalty, which in our considered opinion, is impermissible in law. The respondent, in law, is entitled to proceed against the petitioner for realisation of an amount equal to tax payable by the fourth respondent for a year as assessed by the authority but not more than that. No proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner for realisation of whole of the amount due and payable by the fourth respondent, since the liability of the petitioner as a surety is restricted only for an amount equal to the tax payable for a year as estima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi Bar Restaurant's case [1998] 27 APSTJ 79 that the department is required to proceed first against the dealer and only thereafter against the guarantor/surety. Be that as it may, in the impugned order itself, it is clearly stated that the department is unable to recover any amount whatsoever from the fourth respondent. Obviously, only after exhausting the remedy available against the fourth respondent herein, the department has decided to proceed against the petitioner. In our considered opinion, the respondent did not commit any illegality in proceeding against the petitioner for realisation of the arrears of tax payable by the fourth respondent. However, the respondent cannot proceed against the petitioner for realisation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
