RONAK Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COMMISSIONER, EXCISE AND TAXATION, GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a defaulter of sales tax for non -payment of the same can be detained in the civil prison repeatedly or that after he has been so detained for a period of 40 days, the Government cannot once again detain him with a view of recover the amount due from him, is the question that has been posed by Ronak Ram through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONER was sole proprietor of M/s Deep Chand Lal Chand, Anaj Mandi, Jind and partner in M/s Jain Brothers, Jind. Both the firms were registered with the Sales Tax Department. There were numerous proceedings against M/s Deep Chand Lal Chand and Jain Brothers under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. (herein -after referred to as the Act). It is pleaded that they all were decided ex -parte and the demands were created without any service on him. However, when he came to know about the same, he filed appeals against some of the orders which are stated to be still pending. Since the demands created through ex -parte orders aforesaid were of huge amount, he could not meet the same and also could not seek his remedy in various appeals filed by him as he was financially as also physically weak. It is pleaded that he had been sick for a long time and was not in a position to arrange money in order to pursue his remedies. In consequence of the default in payment made by him, he was arrested and detained in civil prison for 40 days. This coercive method adopted by the respondent -department, obviously with a view to recover the amount of tax from him, however, yielded no results. Petitioners is stated to be having no assets so as to meet the heavy demands. He is an old man of 65 years and is stated to be heart patient. Recently his one of the veins in nose got burst and the doctors opined that he would not survive but on account of some electric treatment, there was some improvement. On this count, it is stated, that he is physically weak and is not doing any work for the last many years. He is staying on charity and is fed by charity of relations and others. It is on the basis of facts, as made out above, that it is pleaded and so argued by learned counsel appearing for him that the exercise of the respondents in arresting and re -arresting the petitioner time and again would be of no meaning and consequence and this being the last resort to recover the dues, if fails, as there are no resources with the person concerned, the action being an exercise in futility, would also be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it has been pleaded that both the firms, M/s Deep Chand Lal Chand, Anaj Mandi, Jind and M/s Jain Brothers, Jind were two separate legal entities. Petitioner was, however, sole proprietor of M/s Deep Chand Lal Chand and he was also partner of M/s Jain Brothers. The assessment was not framed in the name of petitioner but in the names of firms and the outstanding amounts against the said firms are as follows: -

(3.) BEFORE the question aforesaid is answered, it shall be useful to see the relevant provisions dealing with the subject. Section 34 of the Act deals with the recovery of tax, interest and penalty as arrears of land revenue. Same runs thus: -