Skip to content


Shyam Sunder Kanodia Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.W. No. 139 of 1975
Reported in(1978)7CTR(All)222
AppellantShyam Sunder Kanodia
RespondentState of U.P. and ors.
Excerpt:
- interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute......sales tax (collection) took warrants of arrest of the petitioner to his house for not paying the sales-tax dues. the petitioner was not present and, therefore, he could not be arrested. the contents of this paragraph have been denied in the counter affidavit where it has been stated that no such warrant had been issued. in paragraph no. 11 it has been stated that no warrant of arrest had been issued against the petitioner. it cannot hence be said that a warrant had been issued against him. the question of grant of relief prayed for does not arise. learned counsel stressed that the department had attached in 1971 a house belonging to the petitioner and that they have not yet taken proceedings to auction it and recover their dues, and so the authorities cannot validly arrest the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner prays that he be not arrested in the proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales-tax. This prayer is based on paragraph No. 10 of the Writ Petition stating that on 12th February, 1975 the Kurk Amin and Naib Tahsildar of the Sales Tax (Collection) took warrants of arrest of the petitioner to his house for not paying the sales-tax dues. The petitioner was not present and, therefore, he could not be arrested. The contents of this paragraph have been denied in the counter affidavit where it has been stated that no such warrant had been issued. In paragraph No. 11 it has been stated that no warrant of arrest had been issued against the petitioner. It cannot hence be said that a warrant had been issued against him. The question of grant of relief prayed for does not arise. Learned counsel stressed that the Department had attached in 1971 a house belonging to the petitioner and that they have not yet taken proceedings to auction it and recover their dues, and so the authorities cannot validly arrest the petitioner. In Padrauna Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. and others vs. The Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. and Others, it has been held that the provisions of the law impose no objection to recover the dues only by sale of property. The arrest and detention may be affected or immovable property may be attached simultaneously. This the submission of the learned counsel has no substance.

2. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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