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 the garnishee notice issued under section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was valid, including whether the petitioner could be treated as a defaulting dealer and whether service by affixture was permissible on the facts.
Analysis: Section 17 authorises recovery by garnishee process where tax and allied dues are recoverable from a dealer in default. On the facts, the dealer had suppressed turnover, evaded compliance, kept the business premises closed, and avoided service of notices. The record showed that notices, provisional assessment order, and demand notice had to be served by affixture after the authorities found the dealer unavailable at the business premises. In these circumstances, service by affixture was justified and the recovery machinery under section 17 could be invoked. The authorities relied on the dealer's conduct to treat him as a defaulting dealer, and the notice could not be invalidated on the ground that ordinary modes of service were not first exhausted.
Conclusion: The garnishee notice was valid and the challenge to the notice under section 17 failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Garnishee recovery under section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 can be invoked against a dealer whose conduct shows default and evasion, and substituted service by affixture is valid where ordinary service is frustrated by the dealer's conduct.