CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference by the District Magistrate, of course, raises an interesting question. What happened in this case is this : There were certain amounts in the deposit of the court to the credit of C. C. No. 1739 of 1965. One Chandrasekaran applied for the refund of that amount claiming that amount as due to him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. When the application of chandrasekaran was pending, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Arcot, sent a notice to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cheyyar, in form No. B-6, with a copy to Chandrasekaran (which is disputed now) requesting the Sub-Divisional magistrate to withhold the money due to Chandrasekaran and pay the same to the deputy Commercial Tax Officer. It also appears that subsequently after the notice was sent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer also preferred a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate claiming the amount towards Government dues. The petition filed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was dismissed. The sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the refund of the amount to Chandrasekaran. On the order of dismissal of the application, the Deputy commercial Tax Officer filed a revision petition before the District magistrate, North Arcot. The District Magistrate, after having heard the arguments on both sides, has submitted this reference stating that the opinion of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that no notice can be issued to the court by a commercial Tax Officer was erroneous.

(2.) I have gone through the order of the Sub-Divisional magistrate. He has given several reasons for dismissing the application filed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and allowing the petition filed by chandrasekaran and directing refund of the amount. The reasons given by him, excepting the one which requires consideration in this reference, are all frivolous. The main reason which appears to have weighed with the sub-Divisional Magistrate was that no officer of the Commercial Tax Department can issue a notice in form No. B-6 to a court, according to his conception of the word "person" mentioned in section 26 of the Tamil Nadu General sales Tax Act. The relevant portion of section 26 (1) of the Tamil Nadu General sales Tax Act is this : "the assessing authority may at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing (a copy of which shall be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority) require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the dealer or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the dealer to pay to the assessing authority. . . . . . . . . . . " *