PATEL NATVARLAL AMBALAL Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these matters are interconnected and involve common questions and are, therefore, disposed of together.

(2.) IN Special Civil Application No. 3343 of 1984, the petitioners were partners of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal, a firm doing business of selling tea at Mehsana. According to the petitioners, up to November 4, 1975, only the petitioners Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were the partners and from November 4, 1975, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 joined the firm in their capacity as kartas of their respective HUFs. The petitioners have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1, Sales Tax Officer, against them and the proclamations at annexures A/1, A/2 and A/6 to A/10 under section 165 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, for public auction of the properties which were attached for realisation of the sales tax dues on the basis of the garnishee provisions of section 48 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The respondent No. 1 had proceeded against the petitioners under section 48 of the Act in respect of the amount which was due to be paid by the firm in which the petitioners were partners, i. e. , M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal to the dealer M/s. Patel Babulal Parsottamdas, also of Mehsana, which firm was in arrears of sales tax dues.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that an amount of Rs. 3,95,773 was due to be paid by M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal to the dealer-firm M/s. Babulal Parsottamdas and therefore, the sales tax dues could be recovered by issuing notice under section 48 of the Act. The amount was less than the arrears of sales tax recoverable from the dealer-firm, which amounted to Rs. 14,64,600. According to the respondents, as stated in their affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner No. 5 - Ugarbhai had appeared on January 12, 1983, before the Sales Tax Officer pursuant to a notice and admitted in writing the liability of the debtor-firm and gave an assurance that the amount would be paid up. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions, taking up similar stand.