9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant filed a claim for Rs. 22,468.88 against the said company before the official liquidator on account of the arrears of sales tax (both Central and State) due from the former as per the following details :- Date of assessment order Assessment Years Total amount of tax assessed Tax paid Amount of tax in arrears Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 21.11.1955 1954-55 14,062.50 6,813.08 7,249.42 U.P.S.T. Act 31. 8.1957 1955-56 1,208.33 997.02 211.31 Do. 20. 5.1958 1956-57 324.78 324.73 0.05 Do. 9. 1.1960 1957-58 85.22 78.72 6.50 Do. 26. 9.1960 1958-59 2,291.00 2048.21 242.79 Do. 26. 9.1960 1958-59 668.81 - 668.81 Central 28. 3.1964 1959-60 7,020.00 - 7,020.00 U.P.S.T. Act 10. 8.1964 1959-60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priority as land revenue. As for the claim for the last two items which was totally disallowed by the official liquidator, his contention was that as under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act, the legality and correctness of an assessment order could not be challenged in any other manner except that provided in that Act and as the official liquidator had not got the assessment order in question set aside under the Act he was in error in rejecting the appellant's claim in respect of those items. After hearing Sri Sapru and the official liquidator, I am satisfied that while the second contention of Sri Sapru is well founded, his first contention has no merit and is liable to be rejected. I shall, therefore, proceed to deal with those contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1958-59, it could neither have become due nor payable within the period aforementioned. It seems to me that what section 530(1)(a) envisages is, the revenue, sales tax, etc., which are currently due and payable at the time of the winding-up order and it does not include in its ambit arrears of the same. Besides, this section not only requires that the tax, etc., should have become due within the relevant period but that they should have also become payable within that period. Both these conditions must therefore co-exist before the priority mentioned therein can be claimed. Hence even if the sales tax regarded as land revenue is held to be payable within the material period, it cannot possibly be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso, therefore, to be rejected. The second contention of Sri Sapru has been noticed earlier, and as such need not be repeated here. It is common ground that the assessment orders relating to the assessment year 1959-60 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Act, were passed ex parte on the 28th of March, 1964 and the 10th of May, 1964, respectively, without notice to the official liquidator, and without their demand notices being served upon him. The official liquidator rejected the claim for these two items on the grounds (1) that as the Sales Tax Officer did not take the leave of the court to the commencing of these assessment proceedings against the company, the said proceedings were void ab initio and as such no sales tax could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales tax claim before him; thereafter there was no justification for his not taking any steps to challenge the legality, propriety and correctness of these assessment orders as provided under the Sales Tax Act. It was not as if the Sales Tax Act did not provide for such a contingency, for section 9 of that Act, which provides for appeals against assessments, makes a special provision in sub-section (6) thereof, extending the benefit of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to such appeals. The official liquidator could have therefore filed his appeals against the impugned assessment orders and prayed for the condonation of the delay on the grounds mentioned above. If the appellate or/and the revisional authorities under the Sales Tax Act h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
