Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether payment of sales tax to the Proverthicar under revenue recovery proceedings was a valid payment binding on the State, and whether the assessee was entitled to credit for the amount so paid despite the officer's subsequent misappropriation.
Analysis: The payment was made after demand under the Revenue Recovery Act had been served, and Section 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act (VII of 1951) authorised payment to the Proverthicar and entitled the payer to a receipt. The provision did not require any particular form of receipt. Section 62 of the same Act made arrears of public revenue recoverable under that Act, and Section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act (XI of 1125) treated unpaid sales tax as recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The limitation in Rule 15 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 did not affect recovery once proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act had commenced. Since the Proverthicar was an authorised receiving officer, payment to him was valid. Any fraud or embezzlement committed later by the officer could not be set up against the payer in the absence of proof that the payer was party to the fraud.
Conclusion: The payment of Rs. 1,900 was a valid discharge, and the State was bound to give credit for it.