Skip to content


Chhote Lal Jaiswal Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 594 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1977]40STC599(All)
AppellantChhote Lal Jaiswal
RespondentThe Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.C. Sharma, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....that the authorities cannot proceed with the recovery of sales tax in the absence of service of demand notice on the petitioner. sri sharma submitted that one vasudeo on whom the demand notice is said to have been served, had not been authorised by the petitioner to receive any such demand notice and that hence the demand notice served on him could not form the basis for proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax from the petitioner. in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is explained that vasudeo had appeared before the assessing authority on behalf of the petitioner and had produced the books of account. in the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that vasudeo had no authority to represent the petitioner cannot be accepted, even though vasudeo had no.....
Judgment:

Chandrashekhar, J.

1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax for the assessment year 1957-58. Sri R.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the authorities cannot proceed with the recovery of sales tax in the absence of service of demand notice on the petitioner. Sri Sharma submitted that one Vasudeo on whom the demand notice is said to have been served, had not been authorised by the petitioner to receive any such demand notice and that hence the demand notice served on him could not form the basis for proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax from the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is explained that Vasudeo had appeared before the assessing authority on behalf of the petitioner and had produced the books of account. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that Vasudeo had no authority to represent the petitioner cannot be accepted, even though Vasudeo had no power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner authorising the former to receive the demand notice.

2. Moreover, the petitioner had been arrested in the year 1962 for realisation of arrears of tax. He was released by the Collector, Gorakhpur, on his (petitioner) giving an undertaking to the authorities that he would pay the tax in instalments. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to urge that the recovery proceedings are invalid on account of the demand notice having been served on Vasudeo, who, according to the petitioner, had no authority to receive the demand notice.

3. In the result, we do not admit this petition but dismiss it. The interim order made by us on 20th October, 1976, stands vacated.


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