Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 1967 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1967 (5) TMI 43 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the order of distraint dated November 20, 1958, made by the Collector of Aurangabad is legally valid - Held that:- The procedure followed by the Collector is justified by the provisions of section 119 and there is nothing in the language or context of the section which prohibits the Collector from making an order of distraint with regard to the movable property in the custody and possession of a Court. We accordingly reject the argument of respondent No. 1 on this aspect of the case. Whether the debt due to the Government in respect of arrears of sales tax has priority over the dues of respondent No. 1. ? - Held that:- Section 144 enumerates the nature of taxes in respect of which the provision under the Land Revenue Act could be adopted for recovery. But the language of section 104 makes it clear that the priority specified in that section applies only in respect of land revenue and not in respect of other taxes. In respect of other taxes, we consider that only the procedure for recovery under section 116 applies and not the substantive law of priority under section 104 of the Land Revenue Act. In our opinion, counsel for the appellants has not been able to make good his argument on this aspect of the case. Whether the appellants are entitled to claim priority towards payment of sales tax according to the common law doctrine of "priority of Crown debts" quite apart from the provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act? - Held that:- Unable to apply the English common law doctrine of priority of Crown debts in this case, because there is no proof that the doctrine was given judicial recognition in the territory of Hyderabad State prior to January 26, 1950, when the Constitution was brought into force. We granted time to counsel for the appellants to ascertain whether there were any reported decisions recognising such a doctrine in the Hyderabad State, but sufficient material has not been placed before us in this case to show that the doctrine was given judicial recognition in the Hyderabad State before its incorporation into the Indian Republic.
|