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 writ court was justified in granting instalment facility and keeping the garnishee order in abeyance in the absence of any statutory provision for payment of tax by instalments, despite non-remittance of collected tax and suppression of material facts.
Analysis: The tax liability for the relevant month had been finalized and the statutory scheme required monthly returns to be filed along with proof of payment of tax. The provisions governing return filing did not contemplate payment by instalments. The dealer had collected tax from the purchaser but had not remitted it in time, and retention of tax collected on behalf of the State was treated as unjust enrichment. The earlier order declining further indulgence was also not fairly placed before the writ court. Since the writ remedy is equitable, a party suppressing material facts and seeking repeated indulgence was not entitled to discretionary relief.
Conclusion: The grant of instalments and abeyance of the garnishee order was unsustainable. The order of the writ court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of statutory authority, a writ court cannot grant instalments for tax payment as an equitable indulgence to a dealer who has collected tax, withheld remittance, and suppressed material facts.