Skip to content


Hatim Mahmood Vs. A.C.T.O. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 200 of 1959
Judge
Reported in[1959]10STC510(Mad)
AppellantHatim Mahmood
RespondentA.C.T.O.
Appellant AdvocateS. Krishnamurthi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThe Public Prosecutor
Excerpt:
- .....1956, notice of demand had been issued on 27th april, 1955, and 18th february, 1956, to this hatim mahmood. the demand had not been complied with by this hatim mahmood, and, therefore, distress warrant had beed issued by the magistrate.2. the point for consideration is against whom this distress warrant should be issued. rule 21-a of the madras general sales tax rules shows that both the transferor and transferee will be liable. this must be so, because the government cannot be done out of the sales tax by each passing the buck to the other.3. in the present case for the reasons set out in the affidavit of balakrishnan this distress warrant should be issued in the first instance to the transferor and only when then amount cannot be realised from him, the transferee should be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case there has been transfer of a business in ball bearings from one Balakrishnan to the present petitioner, Hatim Mahmood. The transfer was made on 20th March, 1955. ' In respect of the alleged amount due by way of sales tax for 1951-52 and 1952-53 under alleged re-assessment as per assessment orders dated 6th April, 1955, and 27th January, 1956, notice of demand had been issued on 27th April, 1955, and 18th February, 1956, to this Hatim Mahmood. The demand had not been complied with by this Hatim Mahmood, and, therefore, distress warrant had beed issued by the Magistrate.

2. The point for consideration is against whom this distress warrant should be issued. Rule 21-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules shows that both the transferor and transferee will be liable. This must be so, because the Government cannot be done out of the sales tax by each passing the buck to the other.

3. In the present case for the reasons set out in the affidavit of Balakrishnan this distress warrant should be issued in the first instance to the transferor and only when then amount cannot be realised from him, the transferee should be proceeded against. The Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, will issue a distress warrant in the light of the observations made above.


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