Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890
The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994
Section 24 in Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
P. Kannamba And Ors. vs The Board Of Revenue (C.T.) And Anr. on 8 November, 1966
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the case of P. Kannamba v. Board of Revenue [1967] 19 STC 456 (Mad.) ; 1967 (1) MLJ 466 wherein it is observed that "section 26 of the Revenue Recovery Act will not enable the Collector to attach the property of the assessee when they have ceased to be his property at the time when the attachment is sought to be effected".
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
State Of Bank Bikaner & Jaipur vs National Iron & Steel Rolling ... on 14 December, 1994
In this case, reliance was placed on the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation and it is a decision under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that there is a provision under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act creating a first charge on the property of the dealer and similar provision is not available and as such this decision cannot be of any use. Although the term "first charge" is not seen under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 it is evidently clear that a statutory charge has been created and as per exhibits B1 and B2 it is evidently clear that even prior to sale, the final order of assessment has been made by the competent authority and under the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief and the only course open to him is to move the sales tax authorities for ascertaining the correct amount payable. Unfortunately, the lower appellate court misdirected itself and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the simple ground that on the date of attachment, the assessee was not the owner and moreover, the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. These considerations are irrelevant to decide a dispute between the parties, more so, when a statutory charge is created, the court is not entitled to go into these questions and as there is erroneous application of law. I am of the view that the finding given by the lower appellate court is perverse and as such, it is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that after receiving the final order under exhibit B2, the acknowledgment has been marked as exhibit B3 signed by Malayan Chettiar. When the statutory charge is there, the alienation made by the assessee is not valid under law and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief.
Balkishen Goenka vs Special Assistant Commercial Tax ... on 5 July, 1971
13. The learned counsel for the defendants relied on the case of Balkishen Goenka v. Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for Sales Tax Collection [1971] 28 STC 572 (Mad.) wherein it is stated that "it is the fiction of treating the 'arrears of sales tax' as if it were an 'arrear of land revenue' under Section 24(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that attracts Section 52 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. Under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, a charge is created over the property of a dealer for all arrears of sales tax or dues payable under the Sales Tax Act by such dealer. As, by the creation of the statutory charge, the property is burdened until it is relieved of the same by a process known to law, a purchaser of such property cannot escape by merely stating that he is not factually a defaulter as is properly understood and his property cannot in any manner be proceeded with notwithstanding the fact that the property is statutorily charged for the payment of arrears of sales tax due by the person who conveyed the property to him." This decision is exactly applicable to the case on hand.