9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to an action initiated by the first respondent viz., the Commercial Tax Officer in his proceedings dated 20.10.2003, in and by which the house property owned by late A.K.Lala Lajapathy was brought for auction sale for recovery of sales tax dues payable by the firm called A.K.Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and sons. It appears that the auction was conducted and the highest bidder had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,12,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 14,30,734/- was adjusted as against the sales tax arrears payable by the partnership firm A.K.Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and sons and out of the remaining amount, a sum of Rs. 6,85,541/- was adjusted against the dues of a proprietary concern Sri Lakshmi Traders in which the wife of late A.K.Lala Lajapathy namely, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the instant case, the Revenue Recovery Act proceedings has been done by the first respondent and not the territorial Assistant Commissioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, in paragraph 10, reliance was placed on Section 29(4) of the Act to justify the action. Section 29(4) of the Act states that the territorial Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) may subject to control and supervision of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, delegate the power vested in them under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 29 to any officer not below the rank of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. Admittedly, the first respondent is an officer below in rank than that of a Assistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property is sold for recovery of the tax dues of A.K.Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and sons, which is a registered dealer, then adjustment could have been made only as against the said dues and there is no jurisdiction for the respondents to adjust the balance amount towards the alleged dues payable by a proprietorship concern namely, M/s.Lakshmi Traders which was a separate entity having a separate registration. 10.Hence, for all the above reasons, the impugned proceeding is held to be unsustainable in law. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel that the sale though effected was not confirmed as an order of interim stay was granted by this Court. Subsequently, the auction purchaser had withdrawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
