Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) Besides the said two respondents, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi has also been imploded as respondent No. 3 (6) In response to show cause notice, an answer was filed on behalf of the respondents and the petition is resisted. It is explained that on receipt of recovery certificates from the Sales Tax Officer in respect of aforementioned assessment years in Form ST-17, respondent No. 1 issued various notices and warrants to the petitioner but there being no response, warrants of his arrest were issued. Initially, the warrant of detention was issued by respondent No. I on 22 February, 1992 under Section 138 of the Land Reforms Act, in his capacity as Collector of Sales Tax, for detention of the petitioner up to 7 March, 1992 on which date he was required to be produced before respondent No. 1; the petitioner being in the hospital, was not produced before respondent No. 1 and the date of his production was extended first up to 9 March, 1992 and thereafter to 20 March, 1992. However, on 9 March, 1992, another warrant of detention was issued by respondent No. I, directing petitioner's detention in civil prison up to 20 March, 1992. The said two warrants of detention placed on record, indicate that whereas the warrant dated 22 February, 1992 purports to have been issued for non-payment of a sum of Rs. 3,59,28,581.00 - "total" for all the assessments separately made till then, clubbed together, while the warrant dated 9 March 1992 was issued for non-payment of a sum of Rs. 2,15.425.00 for the assessment year 1978-79 - period also covered by the earlier warrant of detention. It appears that on 21 March, 1992, respondent No. 1 issued yet another memorandum for the production of petitioner before him for 3 April, 1992 and extended the period of his detention till then. The stand of the respondent is that dues of sales tax pertaining to different years cannot be clubbed for the purpose of initiating action under Section 138 of the Land Reforms Act and for the recovery of arrears of tax for each of the years separately, and a dealer could be detained for a period up to 15 days separately for each recovery certificate based on relevant assessments separately made, and thus the total aggregate period of detention may exceed 15 days. They say that the said Section is only one of the modes of recovery of the arrears of tax as prescribed in Section 136 of the Land Reforms Act but the character of such recovery is determined by the Sales-tax Act.

(9) Section 70 of the Local Act attracts the application of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act for the purpose of Sales-tax recoverable as arrear of land revenue and lays down that for recovery of any amount recoverable as arrear of land revenue under the Act, the provisions of the said Act shall, "not withstanding anything contained in that Act or in any other enactment, be deemed to be in force throughout Delhi and the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. shall have effect accordingly."