1984 (6) TMI 207 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court invalidates sale notice for sales tax assessee, emphasizes need for fresh demand notice post revisional orders.

AP Aboobacker Versus The Sales Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Cannanore and Others

AP Aboobacker Versus The Sales Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Cannanore and Others - [1985] 59 STC 41 (Ker) Issues:1. Validity of notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act without a fresh notice of demand after revisional orders.2. Requirement of a fresh notice of demand after modification of assessment orders.3. Interpretation of statutory provisions under Kerala Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1967.4. Compliance with Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of Act 23 of 1967.5. Effect of failure to intimate reduced amount to the assessee.6. Validity of sale notice dated 18th March, 1982 under the Revenue Recovery Act.7. Continuation of recovery proceedings post revisional orders.Analysis:1. The petitioner, an assessee to sales tax, challenged the legality of a notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act without a fresh notice of demand after revisional orders. The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings cannot continue without a fresh notice of demand reflecting the revised arrears due as per the revisional orders. The petitioner contended that the sale notice dated 18th March, 1982, was invalid and infirm due to the lack of a fresh notice of demand post-revisional orders.2. The main contention revolved around the necessity of issuing a fresh notice of demand after the modification of assessment orders. The petitioner argued that the original notice of demand loses effect once the assessment order is set aside or modified. Citing legal precedent, the petitioner emphasized the requirement for a fresh notice of demand based on the revised assessment orders before further recovery proceedings can be pursued.3. The interpretation of statutory provisions under the Kerala Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1967 was crucial in determining the validity of recovery proceedings post revisional orders. Section 3(1)(b)(i), (ii), and (iii) of Act 23 of 1967 were analyzed to ascertain the obligations of the taxing authority regarding the issuance of fresh notices of demand and intimation of reduced amounts to the assessee and revenue recovery authorities.4. The court highlighted the importance of compliance with Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of Act 23 of 1967, which mandates the taxing authority to provide intimation of reduced amounts to the assessee after revisional orders. The failure to fulfill this statutory requirement rendered the continuation of recovery proceedings, based on the original attachment, incompetent.5. The failure to intimate the reduced amount to the assessee post revisional orders was deemed fatal to the validity of the recovery proceedings. The court emphasized that after revisions, recovery proceedings could only be pursued for the amounts remaining due as per the revisional orders, which necessitated proper intimation to the assessee.6. The court declared the sale notice dated 18th March, 1982 as invalid due to the failure to comply with statutory provisions and the absence of intimation regarding the reduced amounts to the assessee. The lack of a fresh notice of demand reflecting the revised arrears was a critical factor in annulling the sale notice under the Revenue Recovery Act.7. Finally, the court clarified that recovery proceedings could be continued in relation to the revised amount due after intimation by the taxing authority under Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of Act 23 of 1967. The validity of the attachment of properties dated 31st January, 1981 was contingent upon the proper intimation and payment of the reduced amount by the assessee, allowing for the continuation of recovery proceedings from the stage of attachment if the revised amount remained unpaid within a reasonable time.