SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Mad) 895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.Ramamurthi, J.
Chinnamma
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by Collector of Kanyakumari District and another
S.A.No.1222 of 1991
Decided On : 13 August 2001

Advocates:
S.Kadarkarai, for Appellant.
S.T.S.Murthi, Special Government Pleader, for Respondents.

For any tax payable under the Act charge will be created.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959-Sections 24 and 24A-Assessment-for attracting provisions of Section 24-A assessment order ought not to have been passed-Charge should have been created for any tax payable under the Act-Held, transfer of such property void.

JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant.

2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and also consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s husband was doing business in rubber. The sales tax department sent two Form 4 notice to the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs.14,280 by way of arrears of sales tax for the periods 1978-79 and 1981-82. The plaintiff is not doing any business. Even before the order of assessment, the suit property was gifted in favour of the plaintiff by her husband. This property cannot be attached by the sales tax department for the arrears of tax payable, if any by her husband. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit stating that the suit property belonged to the husband of the plaintiff. The second defendant sent a notice to the husband of the plaintiff on 9.2.1981 claiming the arrears of tax. However, on 30.10.1981 the property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Only thereafter, form 4 notice was issued to the plaintiff. The suit property is liable for the sales tax arrears and a charge was also legally created. The plaintiff cannot claim any right over this property, which was secured by her on the basis of a document executed by her husband with an intention to defeat the right of the department.

4. The trial Court framed 4 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked and on the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-14 were marked and no witness was examined. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.14 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dis

missed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the present second appeal is filed.

5. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court. Whether the courts below are correct in applying Sec.24 of the General Sales Tax Act to the facts of this case while the transfer by way of gift in favour of the plaintiff was long before the assessment itself?

6. Heard the learned counsel of both sides.

7. The points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction?

(2) Whether the suit property can be proceeded for the arrears of sales tax?

(3) To what relief?

8.Points: There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to the husband of the plaintiff. It is admitted that the husband of the plaintiff was dealing in rubber products and he had also secured a licence number for doing the said business. For the year 1978-79, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,462 by way of sales tax. He preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli and later, it was reduced to Rs.1,068. The suit property was gifted in favour of the plaintiff by her husband under Ex.A-3, dated 30.10.1981. Learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff contended that even prior to the assessment order, the property has been gifted away to her and under the circumstances, the Department has no right whatsoever to proceed against the suit property and hence, a declaration has to be given that the suit property is not liable to be proceeded for recovery of the sales tax arrears and also consequential relief of permanent injunction.

9. The plaintiff has filed Exs.A-1 and A-2 dated 25.10.1984 relating to the demand notices for taking proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. Exs.A-4 to A-8 are the house tax receipts, showing the payment made by P.W.1. Ex.A-11 is the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.A-13 and A-14 are the reply sent by the authorities. Ex.A-15 is the document given by the revenue authorities in favour of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 and B-2 dated 18.2.1981, demand notice sent by the second defendant to the h












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top