Skip to content


Rabindranath Vs. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer, Royapurram, Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 4349 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Mad299
ActsMadras General Sales-tax Act, 1959 - Sections 26(1); Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantRabindranath
RespondentJt. Commercial Tax Officer, Royapurram, Madras
Excerpt:
- .....the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority. but it is manifest from the frame of sub-sec. (1) that it is not designed to be a condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power of requisition under s. 26(1).(3) the petition is dismissed.(4) petition dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) The petition is to quash a notice served by the Department on the Superintending Engineer, Madras Electricity System under S. 26(1) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1959, requiring him to pay over to the Department certain moneys towards arrears of tax due from the petitioner. The ground of the petitioner is that the requirement of S. 26(1), that a copy of the requisition to the Superintending Engineer, Madras Electricity System, shall be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority, has not been complied with. As a result, it is said, the notice to the Superintending Engineer is invalid.

(2) There are two reasons why this petition should be dismissed. One is that, by quashing the notice, no practical result will follow, because pursuant to the requisition under S. 26(1), the Superintending Engineer had paid the amount, covered by the requisition, to the department. By quashing the notice, the petitioner, will have no effective remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the actual payment by the Superintending Engineer to the department. Secondly, I am unable to accept the contention that the requirement, which according to the petitioner, has not been complied with, is a condition precedent to exercise of the power under S. 26(1). The section is among the group of sections relating to recovery proceedings, and that gives power to the department to serve a garnishee notice as it were on person from whom moneys are due to the assessee, requiring that such moneys should be paid over to the department towards arrears of tax. This power of the assessing authority is to be exercised by a notice in writing served on the person who is required to pay over the moneys to the department. The section no doubt says that copy of such notice should be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority. But it is manifest from the frame of sub-sec. (1) that it is not designed to be a condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power of requisition under S. 26(1).

(3) The petition is dismissed.

(4) Petition dismissed.


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