9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 2039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount, for a suit to be filed, falls foul of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India others Etc. Etc, [ 2004 (4) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT] . In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India others Etc. Etc the constitutional validity of the SERFASI Act, 2002, more particularly the provisions contained under Sections 13,15,17 and 34 of the Act, were under challenge. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has not put forth any challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 287-A of the 1950 Act. His prayer, in the writ petition, is confined only to a challenge to the impugned notice of recovery issued by the respondents. In examining the constitutionally of a statue, it mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging the recovery notice dated 06.06.2019 whereby a sum of Rs. 12,32,66,437/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. 4. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted the petitioner s contention that he was one of the Directors of the Company; and the amounts, which were sought to be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue, could not be so recovered. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that the writ petition involved appreciation of disputed questions of fact; the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy to file a first appeal under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005; and the writ petition was totally misconceived. The writ petition was, accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -17, for a total sum of Rs. 12,33,66,437/- i.e. Rs. 4,51,60,473/- for the year 2014-15, Rs. 4,45,50,000/- for the year 2015-16 and Rs. 3,35,55,964/- for the year 2016-17. 7. While stating that the petitioner had resigned as a Director, from the Company in default of tax dues, in the year 2016, Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would fairly state that the writ petitioner continued to be a Director, of the Company in default during the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, but the management of the affairs of the Company was under the control of others Directors who were now absconding. 8. Even if we accept the submission of the petitioner, that he resigned in the year 2016, a sum of nearly Rs. 10 Crores (Rs. 4,51,61,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) by attachment and sale of his moveable property including produce, (d) by attachment of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due; (e) by lease or sale of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due; (f) by attachment and sale of other immovable property of the defaulter, and (g) by appointing a receiver of any property, movable or immovable of the defaulter. 10. Section 280 of the 1950 Act relates to the writ of demand and citation to appear and, under Sub section (1) thereof, as soon as an arrear of land revenue has become due a writ of demand may be issued by the Tehsildar on the defaulter calling upon him to make payment of the amount within a time to be specified. Sub-Section (2) stipulates that, in addition to or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice of recovery issued by the respondents. 13. In examining the constitutionally of a statue, it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the need of the people, and the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience, and that the laws are enacted which are considered to be reasonable for the purpose for which they are enacted. Presumption is, therefore, in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment ( Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India : (1950) SCR 869; State of Bombay v. F.N. Bulsara : (1951) SCR 682; Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Saki : AIR 1959 SC 942; Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India : (1960) 2 SCR 671 : AIR 1960 SC 554 : 1960 Cri LJ 735). The presumption is always in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue Added Tax Act, 2005 is not available to the petitioner to question the impugned recovery citation, he has, admittedly, the remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act. The obligation cast by the said provision to pay the entire amount would not, in the absence of a challenge to its Constitutional validity, require us to discharge the appellant-writ petitioner of this obligation. 16. Suffice it, therefore, to modify the order of the learned Single Judge to a limited extent and hold that, since the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
