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 rule 44 could be invoked against a person who was only physically disabled but not shown to be of unsound mind, and whether the distraint notice could be treated as invalid on that footing.
Analysis: Rule 44 of the sales tax rules was construed to apply only to a minor or an incapacitated person, and the expression "incapacitated person" was read as referring to a person suffering from unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity rendering him incapable of managing his affairs. Physical incapacity by itself was held insufficient. The provision was treated as analogous to Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which similarly turns on unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity. On the facts, nothing showed that the concerned person was mentally unsound. The court also accepted the clarification that the distraint was directed only against the defaulter's movables in the petitioner's custody and not against the petitioner's own property.
Conclusion: Rule 44 was held inapplicable on the facts, and the notice was not quashed or interfered with.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed in obtaining any substantive relief, and the recovery proceedings were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: The expression "incapacitated person" in the recovery rule refers to a person rendered incapable of managing his affairs by unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, not mere physical disability.