NANDALAL PARSHURAM Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts, which are not in dispute and which have given rise to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as follows :

(2.) I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THOUGH the respondents have not filed any affidavit, they have contended, at the time of hearing of this writ petition, that a notice directing payment of the dues was issued to the petitioner firm, on 14. 02. 1997, in terms of Section 36 (2 ). However, no copy of the notice, which the respondents claim to have issued, has been produced at the time of hearing. Though the respondents have produced the records, the records too do not, admittedly, reflect as to what was the nature of the letter (s)/notice (s), which the respondents claim to have issued to the petitioner firm. Be that as it may, the fact that the respondents had issued letters/notices, dated 19. 01. 1998, aforementioned directing the petitioner firm to make payment of Rs. 10,42,903. 00/-, Rs. 7,77,091/- and Rs. 5,86,025/- for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1990-91 respectively within a period seven days from the date of the receipt of the notices is not in dispute.