Skip to content


Sri Viswanatha Silver Manufacturing Electroplating Work and anr. Vs. Collector of Bombay, Recovery of Sales Tax, Bombay and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 42064 and 42065 of 1982
Judge
Reported in1983(1)KarLJ382; [1983]53STC266(Kar)
ActsBombay Sales Tax Act, 1959
AppellantSri Viswanatha Silver Manufacturing Electroplating Work and anr.
RespondentCollector of Bombay, Recovery of Sales Tax, Bombay and anr.
Advocates:S.G. Shivaram and ;K. Srinivasan, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....is not the authorised person under section 55 of the act to lodge the complaint. hence, proceedings were quashed...........is stated by the petitioners that the claim is erroneous; that they were never dealers under the bombay sales tax act, 1959, and that they are not in arrears of any sales tax to that government and that, therefore, the certificate issued under which the 2nd respondent had acted is without jurisdiction and liable to be struck down and in that circumstance the 2nd respondent be retrained from acting upon the notices at annexures a and b. the 1st respondent is the collector of bombay who apparently issued the certificate for collection of sales tax arrears alleged to be due by the petitioners under the bombay sales tax act. 2. sri shivaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has strenuously urged that this court should examine the validity of the certificate issued by the 1st.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

1. In these petitions the two petitioners have challenged the notice of demand issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar demanding certain sums of money as arrears of land revenue. The demand notices are at annexures A and B to the petition relating to the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioners that the claim is erroneous; that they were never dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and that they are not in arrears of any sales tax to that Government and that, therefore, the certificate issued under which the 2nd respondent had acted is without jurisdiction and liable to be struck down and in that circumstance the 2nd respondent be retrained from acting upon the notices at annexures A and B.

The 1st respondent is the Collector of Bombay who apparently issued the certificate for collection of sales tax arrears alleged to be due by the petitioners under the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

2. Sri Shivaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has strenuously urged that this Court should examine the validity of the certificate issued by the 1st respondent. I am unable to accede to that because the entire cause of action has accrued in the State of Maharashtra where the certificate in respect of the petitioners has originated. If they have any defence, legal or otherwise in regard to the certificate issued for collection that can only be quashed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and not by this Court which cannot exercise any extra-territorial jurisdiction to examine actions taken by other States.

3. In these circumstances the petitioners may approach the proper forum for remedy.

4. These petitions are rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //