Skip to content


Smt. Prem Devi and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Civil Misc. W.P. No. 511 of 1976
Reported in(1977)6CTR(All)246
AppellantSmt. Prem Devi and anr.
RespondentSales Tax Officer and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the orders. in transpires that the petitioner filed appeals against the assessments orders, and on appeal the assessment for the year 1968-69 has been set aside while that for the years 1969-70 has been modified. the appeal for the year 1970-71 is still pending.2. in view of the fact that the petitioner has already resorted to the alternative remedy of appeal, and even in the event of the appeal being adversely decided, he can file a revision, the petition, the petition is so far as it seeks to challenge the assessment order has to abate in view of s. 58 of the constitution 42nd amendment act, 1976.3. so far as the challenge to the recovery proceedings is concerned, no procedural defect has been pointed out to us in the mode of recovery adopted by the recovering authority. the learned.....
Judgment:

C. S. P. Singh, J. - By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer, as also the recovery proceedings consequent to the demand created by the orders. In transpires that the petitioner filed appeals against the assessments orders, and on appeal the assessment for the year 1968-69 has been set aside while that for the years 1969-70 has been modified. The appeal for the year 1970-71 is still pending.

2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already resorted to the alternative remedy of appeal, and even in the event of the appeal being adversely decided, he can file a revision, the petition, the petition is so far as it seeks to challenge the assessment order has to abate in view of S. 58 of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.

3. So far as the challenge to the recovery proceedings is concerned, no procedural defect has been pointed out to us in the mode of recovery adopted by the recovering authority. The learned counsel stated that he made a request to respondent No. 2 for being granted permission to sell the attached goods stocks so as to clear off the dues outstanding against him, but respondent no. 2 has not passed any order yet. It is not clear as to whether any written application was filed by the petitioner before respondent no. 2. In view of these circumstance, it is not possible to issue any order against respondent on. 2 directing him to permit the petitioner to sell the goods so as to clear off the dues. The proper procedure for the petitioner to adopted is to make an application to sell the goods to pay off the tax provided, of course, the same is permissible under the law.

4. In view of the above considerations we dismiss the petition as having abated. The stay order is discharged, However, in view of the fact that the appeal for the year 1970-71 has been pending before the appellate authority, for a considerable length of time we hope that the appellate authority will dispose it off as expeditiously as possible.

5. A copy of this order will be given to the counsel for the petitioner tomorrow on payment of usual charges.


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