G N RAJAPPA NAIK Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner challenges the demand notice issued by the deputy commissioner, kolar, in seeking to enforce an excise liability foisted on the petitioner in regard to certain transactions allegedly entered into by him in chitoor district of andra pradesh. A sum of Rs. 11,963-13 is claimed from the petitioner towards the loss suffered by the chittoor excise authority, relating to reauction sale of the privilege of selling an excise product. The reauction is said to have resulted on account of petitioner's failure in performing the contract upon being awarded. The alleged loss sustained by the chittoor excise authority not having been made good by the petitioner, the collector of chittoor sent a certificate in this behalf purportedly under the revenue recovery act to the deputy commissioner of kolar in whose ordinary jursidiction the petitioner resides for recovery and remittance. Inturn the deputy commissioner, kolar issued a notice of demand as per Annexure-A and the said notice of demand is the target of attack in this writ petition in which amongst other things it is contended that liability was being imposed under Annexure-A without giving any prior information whatsoever to the petitioner advising him of the accrual of such a liability.

(2.) at any rate the counsel for the petitioner urges that the claim being in the nature of damages assessed under a contract on the basis of an alleged breach, could not have been recovered as arrears of land revenue as it could only be recovered by filing a regular suit before a competent court of law. This proposition is sought to be reinforced by depending on the decision in State of Karnataka v R.R. Mills, thirthalli, AIR 1987 SC 1359. To this writ petition the collector of chittoor is also made a party but inspite of notice he has remained absent and is not represented in this court for obvious reasons apparently because he does not want to submit himself to the jurisdiction of an alien court.

(3.) be that as it may, it seems to me and i say so, notwithstanding very persuasive argument put forward by Mr. S.k. joshi for the writ petitioner asking me to strike down the recovery notice Annexure-A on the above noted grounds, that there is very little I can do to assist the petitioner since the basic demand or liability attaching to the petitioner is in virtue of the proceedings by the excise authority, chitoor which is beyond the jurisdiction of this court and will remain so notwithstanding their implcadment to this writ petition and issuance of a notice by this court. A writ issued by this court cannot touch any one beyond the physical territory of the state of karnataka. But, then, Sri joshi submits that the deputy commissioner of kolar being involved in the enforcement of the demand made at the instance of the collector at chitoor and if as urged by him the demand raised by the chittoor collector is unsustainable because the petitioner had no notice of it, I could still act and strike down the demand made under an- nexure-a. But, then, this aspect of the matter is really no longer res integra in the light of a bench decision of this court in K. Bumian v 77ie Commercial Tax officer, calcutta,. 1971(1) mys. L.j. 379). That was a case in which a commercial tax officer of Calcutta made an assessment and levied penalty on petitioner, and as the demand was not paid, issued a certificate for collection under the bengal public demands recovery Act, 1913 to the collector of 24 pargana, West Bengal, who in turn issued a certificate under the revenue recovery act to the deputy commissioner, Bangalore, who took steps to recover the monies under the Mysore land revenue code. Their lordships held in that the petitioner could not in the revenue recovery proceedings question the validity of correctness of the revenue demand in the light of Section 3(3) of the revenue recovery act and that Section 7 of the revenue recovery act extends protection not to the person proceeded against, but to the revenue or public demand sought to be recovered. The only protection which cl. (b) of Section 7 gives to persons is protection against arrest for recovery of tax payable to local authorities. The aforesaid aspect was brought into sharp focus the following passage at para 14. It reads: