Void sale for tax recovery: auction by an unauthorised officer was a nullity, despite valid attachment powers.

Arrears of sales tax recoverable as arrears of land revenue could support attachment and sale of tenancy rights, and section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act did not bar such recovery because it applied to civil court process. The attachment was upheld because the Collector's powers under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act stood delegated to Commercial Taxes Officers. However, the sale itself was void because section 239 authorised conduct of the sale only by the Collector, an Assistant Collector or a specially appointed Tehsildar, and the bid here was accepted by an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer without statutory competence. The void sale was not cured by failure to seek relief for a mere irregularity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sale of the petitioner's tenancy rights for recovery of sales tax arrears was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Arrears of sales tax were recoverable as arrears of land revenue under section 11(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, and section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 did not bar attachment and sale in such recovery proceedings because that provision applied to process of a civil court. The powers of the Collector under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 stood delegated to Commercial Taxes Officers under section 260(1)(b), so the attachment itself was not invalid. However, section 239 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 authorized conduct of the sale only by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector or Tehsildar specially appointed by him. The sale here was conducted and the bid accepted by an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, who was not an specified in section 239. The objection was therefore not a mere irregularity; a sale held by a person lacking statutory competence was a proceeding without authority and was a nullity. The lack of a timely application under section 247 did not cure a void sale. The illegal sale also caused manifest prejudice because the petitioner was deprived of his rights otherwise than in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The sale proceedings were without jurisdiction and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned sale proceedings were set aside, and the authority was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law for recovery of the dues.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale for recovery of arrears conducted by a person not authorized by the governing statute is a nullity, and such voidness is not cured by failure to invoke the remedy for setting aside a mere irregularity.

---