Recovery of admitted tax dues and tourism policy concession claims failed for want of legal basis and prescribed procedure.

Garnishee and demand notices issued to recover admitted and quantified sales tax and luxury tax dues were upheld because the petitioner had collected tax from customers but failed to remit it to the State treasury, and the challenge had no factual or legal basis. A writ of mandamus for tax exemption or concession under the tourism policy was also refused because the petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure, did not effectively challenge the adverse communication, and no enforceable legal right was shown; comparable benefits to other units could not justify relief. The writ petition was dismissed with costs as an abuse of writ jurisdiction, and an enquiry was directed into departmental inaction in recovery.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the garnishee notices and demand notices issued for recovery of tax dues were liable to be quashed; (ii) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing grant of tax exemption or concession under the tourism policy.

Issue (i): Whether the garnishee notices and demand notices issued for recovery of tax dues were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The petitioner had collected tax from customers but had not remitted the same to the State treasury. The notices were issued in the course of recovery of admitted and quantified dues under the applicable sales tax and luxury tax laws. The challenge to recovery was found to be unsupported by any factual or legal basis, and the court treated the petition as an attempt to stall lawful recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: The garnishee notices and demand notices were not liable to be quashed and the challenge failed, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing grant of tax exemption or concession under the tourism policy.

Analysis: The petitioner had not pursued the prescribed procedure for claiming the concession and had not effectively challenged the adverse communication rejecting the request. The policy applicable at the relevant time did not extend the claimed benefit to the petitioner's location, and a mandamus cannot be issued merely because some other units were allegedly granted benefits. A mandamus lies only where a legal right exists and the statutory procedure has been followed.

Conclusion: No mandamus could be issued for extension of tax exemption or concession, and the claim failed, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was devoid of merit, was an abuse of writ jurisdiction, and stood dismissed with costs, while the court also directed an enquiry into the departmental inaction in recovering the tax dues.

---