Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3764
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tarun Agarwala, Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ.
Matai Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Ors. - Respondent
Writ Tax No. 122 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Awareness and failure to object to business proceedings can impact the legality of recovery citations for commercial tax dues.
Headnote:
recovery citation - commercial tax dues - The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings initiated by the commercial tax department and did not object to the business being conducted without registration under the U.P. VAT Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the recovery citation of commercial tax dues, claiming it to be illegal and without authority of law as the petitioner was neither a trader nor doing any business in his name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings initiated by the commercial tax department and did not object to the business being conducted without registration under the U.P. VAT Act. The court dismissed the writ petition and gave liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for recall of the order or file an appeal.
Issues: Recovery citation of commercial tax dues, petitioner's objection to the legality of the recovery, awareness of the petitioner regarding the proceedings initiated by the commercial tax department.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's awareness of the proceedings initiated by the commercial tax department and failure to object to the business being conducted without registration under the U.P. VAT Act influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and gave liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for recall of the order or file an appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Against the recovery citation of Rs. 1,41,650/- towards commercial tax dues, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that the recovery is patently illegal and without any authority of law inasmuch as the petitioner is neither a trader nor is doing any business in his name. This Court had directed Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned special counsel appearing for the respondents to seek instructions. The instructions so received is as under:
3. It transpires that a survey was made by the commercial tax department at the premises in question on 17.11.2014 and it was found that a business for manufacture of interlocking tiles was going on without any registration being taken under the U.P. VAT Act. Based on such survey, a penalty notice under Section 54 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 29th June, 2015 which was eventually followed by a penalty order dated 06.05.2015 imposing a sum of Rs. 39,900/- upon the petitioner, which order was duly served upon him on 26th July, 2015. Subsequently, a notice for provisional assessment order was issued on 20th January, 2015, based on which, a provisional assessment order dated 21.01.2015 was issued again in the name of the petitioner, which has also been duly served. Since the amount has not been paid, the recovery citation has been issued.
4. In the light of the instructions so received, one thing which comes out glaring is, the fact that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings being initiated by the commercial tax department and, at no point of time objected that he was not doing any kind of business or that his son was doing the business in his own name.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find it fit to entertain the writ petition and dismiss the same giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for recall of the order or file an appeal bringing all these facts to the knowledge of the authority concerned.
