Tax recovery by notice upheld where dealer failed to pay before filing returns and exemption request did not suspend liability.

A registered dealer must pay tax due before furnishing the return under the statutory scheme, and failure to do so permits recovery by demand notice without requiring a prior assessment order or hearing. A mistaken description of the demand as "assessed" was treated as a clerical error and did not invalidate the notices. A pending representation for exemption does not suspend the statutory liability to pay tax unless the Act expressly provides for such suspension. The demand and recovery action were therefore upheld, and the writ petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether demand notices issued for tax not paid before filing returns under the statutory scheme were illegal on the ground that no assessment had been made and no hearing was given; (ii) whether liability to pay tax stood suspended until the State Government decided the dealer's representation for exemption.

Issue (i): whether demand notices issued for tax not paid before filing returns under the statutory scheme were illegal on the ground that no assessment had been made and no hearing was given.

Analysis: Under the statutory scheme, a registered dealer was required to pay the tax due according to the return before furnishing the return. Where the dealer failed to do so, the amount became recoverable by notice under the provision governing payment and recovery of tax. The notices, read with the covering letters, showed that the demand was not founded on any assessment order but on the admitted failure to make payment before filing the returns. A mistaken recital in the notices describing the amount as assessed was treated as a clerical error and did not affect the substance of the demand.

Conclusion: The demand notices were valid and the objection based on absence of assessment or hearing failed.

Issue (ii): whether liability to pay tax stood suspended until the State Government decided the dealer's representation for exemption.

Analysis: The exemption power under the saving provision did not create an automatic suspension of the statutory obligation to pay tax. In the absence of any provision making liability contingent on the disposal of the exemption request, the dealer remained bound to comply with the tax payment requirement under the Act notwithstanding pendency of the representation.

Conclusion: Liability to pay tax was not stayed by the pending exemption representation and this contention failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory demand was upheld and the writ petition was rejected, with no basis found to interfere with the tax recovery action.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer is statutorily required to pay tax before furnishing returns, failure to do so permits recovery by notice under the Act, and a pending request for exemption does not suspend that liability unless the statute expressly so provides.

---