Garnishee recovery under sales tax law upheld where dealer copy was sent within reasonable time and stay had been refused.

A garnishee notice under section 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was not invalid merely because the copy to the dealer was forwarded one day after service on the garnishee; the provision required forwarding within a reasonable time, not necessarily before or simultaneously, and no prejudice was shown. Coercive recovery was also permissible while revision petitions against refusal of stay were pending, because no subsisting stay order restrained recovery after the stay applications had been rejected by the first appellate authority. In the absence of any legal impediment, the assessing authority could recover admitted tax arrears, and the challenge based on illegality or arbitrariness failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a copy of a garnishee notice under section 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 had to be forwarded to the dealer before, or simultaneously with, service on the garnishee. (ii) Whether coercive recovery could be pursued while revision petitions against refusal of stay were pending before the revisional authority. (iii) Whether the recovery action was illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable.

Issue (i): Whether a copy of a garnishee notice under section 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 had to be forwarded to the dealer before, or simultaneously with, service on the garnishee.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires forwarding a copy of the notice to the dealer, but the provision does not prescribe any rigid point of time for doing so. The purpose of forwarding the copy is to inform the dealer that money due to him is being proceeded against, so that he may protect his interests and avoid prejudice. The Court held that the question is whether the copy was forwarded within a reasonable time, not whether it necessarily preceded or accompanied the notice to the garnishee. No prejudice was shown from the copy being sent one day later.

Conclusion: The omission to send the copy before or simultaneously with the garnishee notice did not invalidate the recovery action, and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether coercive recovery could be pursued while revision petitions against refusal of stay were pending before the revisional authority.

Analysis: Once the first appellate authority had rejected the stay applications, there was no subsisting stay order restraining recovery. The earlier decision relied on by the petitioner applied to a different situation where the stay application was still pending before the first appellate authority. That principle was held inapplicable where only a revision against refusal of stay remained pending. In that situation, the assessing authority retained power to proceed with recovery under section 17.

Conclusion: Coercive recovery was held to be permissible notwithstanding the pending revision petitions, and the contention was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the recovery action was illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable.

Analysis: In the absence of any legal impediment after rejection of stay, the assessing authority was entitled to recover the admitted tax arrears. The Court held that the authority was acting within its statutory power and in furtherance of public revenue, and the challenge based on arbitrariness could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The recovery action was neither illegal nor arbitrary, and the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in its challenge to garnishee recovery under the sales tax law, and the revenue authorities' action was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A garnishee notice is not invalid merely because a copy is forwarded to the dealer shortly after service on the garnishee, provided the dealer suffers no prejudice and the copy is sent within a reasonable time; once stay is refused, recovery may proceed in accordance with the statute.

---