1960 (12) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cle 226 of the Constitution. The State of Kerala and the Tahsildars of Kottayam and Kanjirappally Taluks are the appellants, and C.M. Francis & Co., a partnership firm, is the first respondent, and the partners of the firm are the remaining respondents.   The respondents were doing business in hill produce like pepper, ginger, betelnuts etc., and were assessed to sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, XI of 1125 (referred to as the Act), for the years 1950 to 1954. The respondents have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,01,716-4-3 as tax. In 1954, proceedings were started against them under section 13 of the Act, which provides that if the tax is not paid as laid down in that section, the whole of the amount or such part ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ars of Kottayam and Kanjirappally Taluks. The firm thereupon filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition or other order or direction to the effect that the proceeding for realisation of the arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act be quashed. In the petition, the respondents urged that inasmuch as they were prosecuted under section 19 of the Act and the Magistrate had issued warrants, the procedure for recovery under section 13 was not available. They contended that under section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the warrant is to be deemed to be a decree and has to be executed according to civil process applicable to the execution of decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure. They, therefore, submit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anted by the High Court.   The respondents did not appear in this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, who has drawn our attention to all the relevant provisions of the law. The question which arises is whether section 19 must be taken to prevail over section 13 of the Act.   Both the sections lay down the mode for recovery of arrears of tax, and, as has already been noticed by the High Court, lead to the application of the process for recovery by attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties belonging to the tax-evader. It cannot be said that one proceeding is more general than the other, because there is much that is common between them, in so far as the mode of recovery is concerned. Section 19, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X