TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proprietor an amount of Rs. 1,03,181 which was tax due in respect of another dealer M/s. Kamal Oil Mill, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, was sought to be recovered from him. In his letter dated February 12, 1987, he stated that he was not in any manner connected with M/s. Kamal Oil Mill, and therefore, he was not liable to pay arrears of sales tax recoverable from that dealer. It is submitted that in spite of this definite factual and legal position, the respondents have been issuing notices under section 17 of the Act, for recovery of the above arrears due from M/s. Kamal Oil Mill. His bank accounts were also attached. It is also stated that the respondents coercively collected an undertaking from the petitioner that he wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd are living together in the same residential house. The business premises of M/s. Kamal Oil Mill was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer (1) No. III on October 13, 1981. Sri Om Prakash closed the business of Kamal Oil Mill from the next day, that is, October 14, 1981. Within three days M/s. Ambica Oil Mill was registered in the name of the petitioner on October 16, 1981. The business is being conducted in the same premises under the same lease deed as M/s. Kamal Oil Mill. The Commercial Tax Officer, who passed the order dated July 7, 1984 issued a demand for Rs. 1,05,185 as the amount of tax due from M/s. Kamal Oil Mill. Sri Om Prakash filed an appeal against the above order and the appeal is still pending. He also filed a Special App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also stated that on June 24, 1986, Sri Om Prakash paid a further sum of Rs. 2,000 as part payment leaving a balance of Rs. 93,185 for the year 1981-82 under the Act and a sum of Rs. 9,996 under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1980-81. It is also stated that neither the petitioner, nor Sri Om Prakash had paid the balance amount so far. Proceedings under section 17 of the Act were initiated and a notice was issued on October 9, 1986 attaching the bank account of the petitioner in the Union Bank of India. As there was no balance in the bank account of the petitioner distraint order dated February 11, 1987 was issued. It is submitted that the facts and circumstances mentioned above clearly indicate that the petitioner was only a nomina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 18 of the Act. Added to that, the petitioner has given an undertaking to the Commercial Tax Officer that in case Sri Om Prakash did not pay the amount due as arrears from M/s. Kamal Oil Mill, it may be recovered from him, that is, from M/s. Ambica Oil Mill. This conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from any discretionary relief from this Court even assuming that all the legal submissions advanced by the petitioner are correct. In that view, we are not persuaded to hold in favour of the petitioner. The attempt to recover the arrears of tax due from M/s. Kamal Oil Mill from the petitioner, either as partner thereof or as transferee thereof in conducting the same business in the same premises under the same lease, cannot be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
