Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 482 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of recovery notice - charge and priority over the other claims against the property of a registered dealer - Section 24(2) of the TNGST Act, 1959 not invoked - HELD THAT:- Explanation I to Rule 24(15-A) of the said Rules would be relevant for the purpose of this case. It states that where the security is furnished in the form of immovable property, the person furnishing it may, in any town, to which Sub-Section (f) of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is applicable, mortgage such property to the Government by deposit of title deeds, that in other cases, the security should be by means of registered mortgage of the immovable property and that the security bond should be in Form XIX-B and should be filed in duplicate, the original of which should bear appropriate adhesive non judicial stamps or court fee stamps - The statutory form as stipulated in Form XIX-B states that the applicant, who is the husband of the appellant herein filed an application for registration before the respondent under the TNGST Act, 1959 and the Registering Authority directed the appellant's husband to furnish security as required under Section 21 of the TNGST Act, 1959. Admittedly, there is no necessity for registration of a security bond as the appellant is irrevocably bound herself to the dues payable by the firm at the time when the registration was applied by the husband of the appellant. Therefore, it will be too late in the day for the appellant to state that the property cannot be proceeded against, that it is her individual property and that the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959 do not specifically provide for recovery of arrears of sales tax from a person, who is not a dealer/defaulter. The terms and conditions of the bond read along with Explanation I to Rule 24(15-A) are lucid and will clearly state that the respondent had enough jurisdiction to proceed in terms of the security bond for recovery of tax arrears payable by the said firm. Appeal dismissed.
|