TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 1302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir capacity as kartas of their respective HUFs. The petitioners have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1, Sales Tax Officer, against them and the proclamations at annexures A/1, A/2 and A/6 to A/10 under section 165 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, for public auction of the properties which were attached for realisation of the sales tax dues on the basis of the garnishee provisions of section 48 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The respondent No. 1 had proceeded against the petitioners under section 48 of the Act in respect of the amount which was due to be paid by the firm in which the petitioners were partners, i.e., M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal to the dealer M/s. Patel Babulal Parsottamdas, also of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be paid by M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal to the dealer-firm M/s. Babulal Parsottamdas and therefore, the sales tax dues could be recovered by issuing notice under section 48 of the Act. The amount was less than the arrears of sales tax recoverable from the dealer-firm, which amounted to Rs. 14,64,600. According to the respondents, as stated in their affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner No. 5-Ugarbhai had appeared on January 12, 1983, before the Sales Tax Officer pursuant to a notice and admitted in writing the liability of the debtor-firm and gave an assurance that the amount would be paid up. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions, taking up similar stand. 5.. Under section 48 of the Gujarat Sales T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds its sales tax liability of Rs. 9,12,815 in S.Y. 2037. The firm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal in which the petitioners were partners owed to the dealer a sum of Rs. 3,95,773. Proceedings were, therefore, initiated under section 48 of the said Act for recovery of that amount. These proceedings are in the nature of garnishee proceedings. A notice under section 48 of the Act was served on the firm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal on June 21, 1982. Since it did not respond, another notice was served on January 11, 1983 on the petitioner No. 5-Ugarabhai who was one of the partners of the firm, requiring him to attend the sales tax office on January 12, 1983 with the books of account of the firm, relating to the S.Y. 2038 and S.Y. 2039. The....