ARISETTI APPALARAJU Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BOBBILI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, the respondent in this petition, to desist from seeking to collect from the petitioner the sales tax arrears due from his father.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be briefly stated : One Arisetti Sriramulu, who was carrying on business in jute and groundnut was assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51. The Sales Tax Authorities found on a scrutiny of the accounts of the assessee that there were large suppressions in the returns of the turnover. The authorities, therefore, determined that a tax of Rs. 6,242-56 nP. was due from the assessee towards which only a sum of Rs. 143-17 nP. was paid. A demand notice for the balance of the sum, namely Rs. 6,099-39 nP., was issued to the assessee on 22nd June, 1953. Arisetti Sriramulu died on 5th June, 1958. The Sales Tax Authorities demanded from the petitioner who was in possession of the estate of his father the payment of the amount due and issued to him a notice on 12th November, 1958, under section 8 of the Revenue Act (Act II of 1864) calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,099-39 nP. on or before 9th November, 1958, in default it was notified that the attached properties would be brought to sale. This petition was filed on 19th November, 1958, challenging the legality of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is alleged that Arisetti Sriramulu and the petitioner were doing business together, that the amount of Rs. 5,873-5-3 paid on 8th May, 1951, was adjusted towards the sales tax arrears due from Sriramulu for the year 1948-49, and if that adjustment is not made the assessee would be due in a like sum for the arrears of 1948-49. I have no reason whatever to doubt the statement of facts contained in the counter affidavit. The sum paid on 8th May, 1951, had been adjusted towards the sales tax due from Sriramulu for the year 1948-49 and so the amount due under the impugned notice, namely Rs. 6,099-39 nP. remains still due and unpaid. The petitioner has stated that his father had never told him that there are any sales tax arrears. This is indeed a very naive and ingenious explanation. Even if his father had not told the petitioner, it cannot mean that the arrears cannot be collected if, in law, they can be done so. The first legal contention of Mr. Anantha Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner is not a defaulter. His contention is that the petitioner is not a dealer. Dealer has been defined in section 2(e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as :