MASITULLAH KHAN Vs. COLLECTOR SHAHJAHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings for the recovery of the arrears of sales tax.

(2.) ONE Abdul Majid Khan was assessed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 resulting in a total demand of sales tax in the sum of Rs. 4,617.40 The tax was not paid by Abdul Majid Khan and in 1957 he died. The present petitioners are his three sons. Their complaint is that without any prior notice to them, proceedings for the recovery of the arrears of tax due from their late father were commenced against them and on 15th March, 1968, a sale proclamation was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahjahanpur, acting on behalf of the Collector under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the sale of their house situated in Deoria and their certain zamindari plots situated in the same village. The sale proclamation stated that the property was to be sold for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,617.40 being the sales tax plus interest thereon. According to the petitioners, 15th April 1968, was the date fixed for the auction of their properties and on that date, they deposited a sum of Rs. 4,648.96 which was the amount of sales tax originally due from their late father. But so far as the demand for interest was concerned, they objected to the payment of the same. On their objection, the Sales Tax Officer postponed the sale by 5 days but did not finally decide their objection. The petitioners go on to state that they tried to contact the Sales Tax Authorities, but neither the Sales Tax .Officer nor the Assistant Sales Tax Officer was available as they were reported to be busy in survey work which was to last till 23rd April 1968. In these circumstances, the petitioners served a copy of the writ petition on the Standing Counsel on the 22nd of April 1968, and moved the same before this Court on the 8th May, 1968, when an interim order of stay was granted to them.

(3.) A plain reading of these provisions shows that a notice of demand has to be served upon the person liable to pay the tax and on his failure to pay the amount within the time and in the manner specified in the notice of demand, he becomes a defaulter and can be proceeded against under sub-section (8) of section 8. The petitioners were of course liable to pay the arrears of sales tax due from their late father under section 7-C of the Act, but in order to launch recovery proceedings against them, it was necessary that they should have been served with a notice of demand calling upon them to pay the arrears within the time and the manner to be specified in the notice of demand. This not having been done in the case of the petitioners, they could not be treated as defaulters and consequently, no recovery proceedings could be instituted against them.