1994 (10) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llenged the order passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax-(exhibit P7) dated September 14, 1994. It is contended that although the business was closed in 1993, he received a notice under section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act issued by the third respondent calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 with a threat to attach the movable properties .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and arbitrary. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents not to collect the amount as directed in exhibit P7. 2.. Heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the respondents. 3.. It appears from exhibit P7 that after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and considering the merits of the contentions and perusal of the records, the first responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the first respondent has the jurisdiction under the Act to pass such an order. Merely because he has passed a conditional order of stay, it does not follow that he exercised his jurisdiction illegally or arbitrarily. If he has acted within the limits of his jurisdiction and the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X