TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as under: A.Y. Date of assess-ment order Tax imposed in Rs. Tax deposited in Rs. Arrears in Rs. 1972-73 30.01.1978 18,000 6,954.41 11,045.59 1973-74 30.01.1978 22,500 5,800.00 16,692.00 1974-75 22.07.1978 60,000 6,570.00 53,430.00 1975-76 18.01.1990 53,626 Nil 53,626.00 Total Rs. 1,34,793.59 The Sale Tax Officer, Etawah, issued recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 to Tehsildar, Bharthana, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,34,793.59 paise from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. In pursuance of the aforesaid recovery certificate, it is said that the share of the petitioner in plots Nos. 539, 213, 214 and 228 of village Singhpur and plot Nos. 799, 800 and 802 of village Khandesi Pacher were attached and were put to auction. The petitioner was not given any information of the auction proceedings or the amount fetched in the auction so conducted. Respondent No.1 after a lapse of about 20 years wrote a letter dated August 20, 2004 to the Deputy Post Master, Bharthana for payment of Rs. 7,55,948 from the petitioner's post office monthly scheme accounts as the balance of tax due and interest thereon. The Deputy Post Master w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1,33,948 remained. In pursuance of it, the petitioner's share in agricultural plot Nos. 539, 213, 214, 228 situate in village Singhpur, Tehsil Bharthana was attached on October 25, 1978 and proceedings for auction were initiated. In spite of various dates fixed, as no prospective bidder came forward, the District Magistrate under rule 285B of the Rules framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act himself made a bid and got the land in dispute under his title vide order dated February 17, 1982 for a sum of Rs. 9,909 only which has been filed as annexure 3 to the said counter-affidavit. Thereafter efforts were made to lease out the land but it could not be leased out. It is further stated that in response to a query made on August 16, 2004 the Trade Tax Officer vide letter dated August 18, 2004 intimated about the balance of arrears of the tax due and interest thereon payable by the petitioner (annexure 7 to the said affidavit). It was on the basis of the said letter and the recovery certificate issued earlier, directions were issued to the post office, Bharthana, for the payment of the amount due from the accounts of the petitioner with the post office. In the counter-affidavit of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the year 1972-73. After aforesaid adjustment the balance principal amount which remained due and recoverable was only Rs. 1,33,948. On the said amount an interest of Rs. 6,09,589 accrued till August 26, 2004 and thus, on the said date the total amount recoverable from the petitioner swelled up to Rs. 7,43,537. A sum of Rs. 3,36,000 has been recovered from the post office accounts of the petitioner, and the balance with further interest still remains recoverable. We have heard Shri R.R. Agarwal for the petitioner and Shri A.C. Tripathi for the respondents. The first and the foremost question which arises for consideration is whether a recovery issued on February 16, 1985 even if it had remained unsatisfied can it be pressed into motion after 19 years and would not be barred by time? The recovery which was issued against the petitioner was in respect of arrears of sales/trade tax for which no limitation for making the recovery has been prescribed under law. The recovery of the aforesaid amount was initiated against the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of U.P.Z.A., and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder which also does not prescribe any time f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for recovering the sum due as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and if there is none whether recovery can be made within reasonable time or it is open to recover at any point of time? The Division Bench while answering the above question held that the object of such statutes is to provide speedy recovery of Government dues and that the proceedings for recovery after lapse of nearly 18 years were not within reasonable time and as such became barred by time. In the instant case undisputedly the recovery certificate was issued on February 16, 1985 and the respondents failed to realize the dues immediately thereafter. The respondents apparently slept over their right to recover the arrears of tax dues for comparatively long period of 19 years and woke up all of sudden in the year 2004 by issuing letter to the Deputy Post Master to make the payment from the post office accounts of the petitioner. The record is silent and does not show the manner in which the respondents after the such a long gap of time came to realise that the amount had remained un-recovered and the same can now be recovered through the post office accounts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Rs. 845 and Rs. 3,36,000 satisfies the arrears of tax dues with interest accrued. Admittedly, under the recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 a sum of Rs. 1,34,793 was demanded. The petitioner had paid Rs. 845 and thus only a demand of Rs. 1,33,948 remained. The principal amount of arrears of tax were Rs. 10,200, Rs. 16,992, Rs. 53,430 and Rs. 53,626 for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, respectively. A sum of Rs. 3,36,000 was realized on August 24, 2004. The counter-affidavit dated February 24, 2010 sworn by Sri R.P. Chaudhary, Tehsildar, Bharthana, discloses that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,36,000 was adjusted towards the outstanding demands of arrears of tax for the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 only to the tune of Rs. 80,322 and the balance towards interest. Thus, the principal demand of arrears of tax for the year 1975-76 to the extent of Rs. 53,626 remained intact. The court is at a loss to understand why the amount of Rs. 3,36,000 so realized was not first adjusted towards the principal arrears of tax liability of all the years. There is no justification on record to justify the adjustment of the aforesaid amount partly towards the principal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner that the recovery stood satisfied with the attachment of agricultural plots of the petitioner and their subsequent auction which ultimately resulted in the transfer of the plots in favour of the collector is totally misconceived. The recovery certificate was issued on December 16, 1985. The attachment of the aforesaid plots and the auction thereof as well as the sale certificate dated August 26, 1983 by which they were transferred in favour of the collector all took place prior to the issuance of the above recovery certificate. The said recovery though under challenge the amount recoverable therein is not disputed. It has not been shown to be illegal in any manner. The liability of the aforesaid tax is also not questioned. Therefore, the presumption is that the recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 for Rs. 1,34,793 has been issued after taking into account all previous transactions, i.e. of attachment, auction and sale and after adjusting the proceeds thereof. In other words, previous attachment, auction and sale of the lands of the petitioner has nothing to do with the above recovery. According to the above recovery a sum of Rs.1,34,793 was recoverable as sales....