CHERIA BAPPU HAJI Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER OTTAPALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was assessed for the year 1965-66 by the Sales Tax Officer, Ottapalam, the first respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. His turnover was determined at Rs. 14,974.01, of which Rs. 7,480.91 was taxed at 2%; and Rs. 7,493.10 was taxed at 10%. Thus the tax payable by him was Rs. 898.93, consisting of Rs. 149.62 at the 2% rate and Rs. 749.31 at the 10% rate. But in calculating the tax, the Sales Tax Officer showed the tax payable at 10% as R.74.93, instead of Rs. 749.31; and he issued a notice of final assessment and refund order, Ext. P 1 dated 23-9-1966 showing the total tax payable by the petitioner as Rs. 224,55 and allowing him a refund of Rs. 69.84, after setting off the above amount of tax against a sum of Rs. 294.39 which he bad already paid as tax. The Sales Tax Officer noticed the arithmetical error, which he had made in calculating the tax as per his order of assessment. He rectified the same and passed an order Ext. P 2 dated 9-11-1967 showing the correct figures, and requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 604.54 after setting off the above said sum of Rs. 294.39 which he had already paid. The petitioner kept quiet. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, moved for the recovery of the tax due from the petitioner as arrear of land revenue. Accordingly, the Tahsildar (Taxation), Ottapalam, the second respondent destrained the petitioner's cattle, and notified them for sale on 5-4-1969. Thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash Ext, P 2 and direct the second respondent to release the cattle.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that Ext P 2 is bad, as it was made without notice to the petitioner as required by S.43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. That section reads:-

(3.) The next question for my consideration is whether f should exercise my jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution on the facts of this case. Ext, P 2 is dated 9-11-1967, and the petitioner has filed this petition on 3-4-1969. I am not inclined to accept his explanation that he could not move this court earlier, as he was suffering from some disease, which he does not disclose. If he was aggrieved by Ext. P 2, he had the remedy by way of revision under S.36; and there is no reason why he could not resort to it. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the order Ext, P 2, on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.