Pending statutory enquiry over sales tax liability defeats writ interference with protective recovery notices and no-objection certificate restraint.

Where sales tax liability is still under a pending statutory enquiry, protective notices for recovery and a related direction restraining issuance of a no-objection certificate will not ordinarily justify writ interference. The respondents stated that the petitioner's liability would be examined after giving an opportunity to object, and the Court treated the impugned communications as interim measures rather than final recovery action. As the question of non-recovery and responsibility remained to be determined in the enquiry, the challenge was not entertained and the parties were left to work out their rights in that forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere with the notices issued for recovery of sales tax dues and the consequential communication directing the housing society not to issue a no-objection certificate, when the petitioner's liability was stated to be under enquiry.

Analysis: The notices were treated as part of an enquiry and not as a final recovery action. The respondents stated that the petitioner's liability would be examined after giving an opportunity, and the petitioner was permitted to raise all objections in that enquiry. The Court also noted that the statutory burden contemplated under the applicable sales tax framework placed the question of non-recovery and the petitioner's responsibility for it within the enquiry process, and there was no basis to lift the restraint on issuance of the no-objection certificate at that stage.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction, and the challenge to the notices and the restraint on issuance of the no-objection certificate was not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was left to be decided in the pending enquiry, and all contentions on liability and recovery remained open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where liability is yet to be determined in a pending statutory enquiry and the impugned communication is only protective or interim in nature, writ interference is not warranted and the parties must work out their rights in the enquiry.

---