Skip to content


S. M. Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Deputy Collector Sales Tax, Collection and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.W.P. No. 7306 of 1974
Reported in(1978)7CTR(All)356
AppellantS. M. Ibrahim and ors.
RespondentDeputy Collector Sales Tax, Collection and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 75,750.84 was demanded as payable as sales-tax for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1967-68. the petitioners were threatened with attachment as well as arrest in case they failed to deposit the demanded tax along with 18% as interest. another objection was that the health of the arrested persons was not good......recovery are pursued.6. in the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. the petitioners are directed to file proper objection within six weeks from today which will be treated to be an objection in continuation of the earlier objection and the respondents will dispose it of before proceeding further with the recovery proceedings. the parties will bear their own costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved against a notice dated 9th October, 1974, in which a sum of Rs. 75,750.84 was demanded as payable as sales-tax for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1967-68. The petitioners were threatened with attachment as well as arrest in case they failed to deposit the demanded tax along with 18% as interest.

2. The petitioners grievance is twofold. In the first place he states that some of the petitioners had been arrested earlier but on their objection, inter alia on the ground that they had not inherited any asset from the deceased dealer, they were not personally liable. Another objection was that the health of the arrested persons was not good. Ultimately the arrested persons were released after about a weeks detention, without an adjudication of the objection whether the petitioners have or have not inherited any asset from the deceased dealer. In the next place the petitioners grievance is that in any event they are not liable to be arrested without an adjudication of the question whether they have inherited any asset of the deceased earlier.

3. The objections have some justification. Under S. 7-C of the U.P. Sales Tax Act the legal representatives are liable for the tax dues of the deceased but only to the extent of the assets of the deceased coming in their hands. The petitioners contention is that they did not receive any asset. This contention though raised in the objection filed earlier had not been adjudicated upon.

4. Learned Standing Counsel argued that the petitioners did not give any details in the objection filed earlier.

5. In our opinion the equities of the case would be met if the petitioners file a proper and a detailed objection and the same is adjudicated now by the authorities before further proceedings for recovery are pursued.

6. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioners are directed to file proper objection within six weeks from today which will be treated to be an objection in continuation of the earlier objection and the respondents will dispose it of before proceeding further with the recovery proceedings. The parties will bear their own costs.


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