TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates Property Attachment Order by BBMP Commissioner Under Cr.P.C.</h1> <h3>M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit and Recovery 6. 1)</h3> M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit and Recovery 6. 1) - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the order of attachment of property through BBMP Commissioner under Section 421 of Cr.P.C.Analysis:The petitioner, a catering business registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, challenged an order passed by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court for levying sales tax on food sales. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority erroneously imposed a tax of Rs. 35,25,376 despite the exemption under the Act. The respondent initiated recovery proceedings due to non-payment, leading to the attachment order of a property. The petitioner argued that the order was invalid as it was executed through the BBMP Commissioner, not an authorized officer under Section 421 of Cr.P.C.The petitioner's counsel highlighted the discrepancy, citing Section 421 of Cr.P.C., which authorizes the District Collector, not the BBMP Commissioner, to attach property for recovery of dues. The respondent's stand was that the order was justified since the amount remained unpaid. After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court found that the order of attachment through the BBMP Commissioner was unauthorized under Section 421(2) of Cr.P.C. The Court concluded that the Commissioner lacked the authority to execute the attachment, emphasizing that only the District Magistrate could carry out such actions under the law.Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order of the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court dated 26.07.2012. The respondent was granted the liberty to pursue appropriate orders in accordance with Section 421(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the necessity of involving authorized officers in executing orders related to property attachment for recovery purposes under the relevant statutes.
TaxTMI 