1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court upholds warrant for sales tax arrears, rejects petitioner's distinction argument.</h1> The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the validity of the warrant issued for the attachment of movables to recover sales tax arrears. It ... - Issues:1. Validity of the warrant issued for the attachment of movables for recovery of sales tax arrears.2. Interpretation of clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the recovery of fines.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a revision petition under section 13(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, challenging an order for the attachment of movables to recover sales tax arrears. The petitioner contested the enforcement of the demand made under the provisional assessment order for the year 1968-69 after a final assessment was completed. However, a memo filed by the respondent clarified that the recovery application related only to the tax due for the final assessment of 1967-68, rendering the petitioner's contention moot.Regarding the validity of the warrant issued for recovery, the petitioner's counsel argued that the warrant under clause (a) of section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied only to offenders sentenced to pay fines, while a defaulter like the petitioner should be subject to a warrant under clause (b) issued to the District Collector. The court rejected this argument, deeming the distinction between offender and defaulter as baseless. It emphasized that the Magistrate, under section 13(3)(b) of the Sales Tax Act, could recover dues as if they were fines imposed by him, placing the petitioner in the position of an offender or defaulter for recovery purposes.In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the validity of the warrant issued for the attachment of movables to recover sales tax arrears. The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the distinction between offenders and defaulters for the purpose of recovery, emphasizing the Magistrate's authority to recover dues under the Sales Tax Act as fines imposed by him, regardless of the classification of the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
