TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for Rs. 9,000 by a registered sale deed No. 1130, dated 22nd May, 1971. and filed the suit on the ground that the house was wrongly attached and sold by the respondent-State in recovery proceedings in respect of recovery of Rs. 18,810 against M/s. Hind Union Traders. He, therefore, prayed for a declaratory decree that he was the sole owner of the house and the same was not liable to be attached or sold in sales tax recovery proceedings. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant. 4.. One of the substantial questions of law on which this appeal was admitted is "whether the courts below have correctly appreciated the scope of the provisions of section 33-A o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182; AIR 1961 SC 1047 has said, "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed: it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency." 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e words...........sum payable by the dealer as a result of completion of the said proceedings". It is in this light that Shri Chaphekar submitted that a notice of demand is not covered by the term "proceeding" inasmuch as the sum demanded has already been decided and determined as a sum payable by the dealer in an earlier proceeding, which cannot be said to be pending with a notice of demand is issued. 10.. Shri Dube, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent-State referred to exhibit D/2, which is a notice of demand dated 23rd October, 1970, for the period 1st April, 1968 to 31st March, 1969. But this sum had already become payable on completion of proceedings relating to the year 1968-69. On the date when transfer ....