Skip to content


Kishan Swarup Shukla Vs. Deputy Collector, Sales Tax-cum-recovery Officer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 5835 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1978]42STC453(All)
AppellantKishan Swarup Shukla
RespondentDeputy Collector, Sales Tax-cum-recovery Officer and ors.
Appellant AdvocateSwami Dayal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredAllahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Excerpt:
- - the recovery authorities were, therefore, clearly entitled to adjust whatever realisations were made towards any of the amounts mentioned in the recovery certificates......point, therefore, fails.2. in the second place, it has been averred that the petitioner paid rs. 4,000 towards the demand due for the three quarters of the assessment year 1973-74. the respondents were not entitled to adjust it towards the interest demanded for earlier year. in the counter-affidavit it has been clarified that arrears for previous years were also due and the recovery authorities had received recovery certificates for those previous years' dues. the recovery authorities were, therefore, clearly entitled to adjust whatever realisations were made towards any of the amounts mentioned in the recovery certificates. the petitioner could not validly earmark payments towards any particular demand. in any event, even if it be accepted that the petitioner could earmark the.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, J.

1. The petitioner wants that recovery proceedings for realising arrears of sales tax dues from the petitioner be quashed till proper demand and citation is made. This relief proceeds on the ground that though the petitioner was in arrears of sales tax dues for the years prior to 1973-74, yet no demand or citation was made by the authorities in respect of interest due on those arrears and so interest could not be recovered validly. In Haji Lal Mohammad Bin Works, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1973 U.P.T.C. 690, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no provision in the Act which makes it obligatory on the part of the Sales Tax Officer to make an assessment in respect of the interest which the amount of sales tax would carry under Section 8(1-A) of the Act. There is also no provision in the Act which requires the issue of a notice of demand in respect of the interest. This point, therefore, fails.

2. In the second place, it has been averred that the petitioner paid Rs. 4,000 towards the demand due for the three quarters of the assessment year 1973-74. The respondents were not entitled to adjust it towards the interest demanded for earlier year. In the counter-affidavit it has been clarified that arrears for previous years were also due and the recovery authorities had received recovery certificates for those previous years' dues. The recovery authorities were, therefore, clearly entitled to adjust whatever realisations were made towards any of the amounts mentioned in the recovery certificates. The petitioner could not validly earmark payments towards any particular demand. In any event, even if it be accepted that the petitioner could earmark the payments, yet since admittedly large amounts were still outstanding against the petitioner, the petitioner could not escape their recovery. In either view of the matter, it is not a fit case for interference.

3. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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