Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

M/S.Acilube India vs Deputy Commissioner North(C.T.)

Madras High Court|28 July, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to recover a sum of Rs.41,25,613/- from the 4th respondent, pursuant to a notice of Form B6, dated 06.11.2001, issued under section 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. It is seen that, in response to the notice, the fourth respondent has sent a reply to the third respondent on 20.11.2001, stating that, as per the records, there is no amount payable to the petitioner, and therefore ,they will not be in a position to pay any amount to the Commercial Tax Department. After stating so, the fourth respondent informed the third respondent that, copies of the notice received by the petitioner may be forwarded, so as to enable the fourth respondent to look into. It is not known as to what happened thereafter.
3. In the written instructions given by the third respondent to the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) High Court, Madras, dated 06.12.2004, it is stated that, the petitioner is a defaulter, and has not paid the sales tax arrears from 1989-90 to 1993-94. It is the petitioner's submission that money is payable by the fourth respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner wants the money recovered from the fourth respondent, and adjusted towards their sales tax arrears. Thus, the petitioner would state that the fourth respondent is a garnishee. However, the fourth respondent would state that no money is payable by them to the petitioner.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, unless and until, it is established beyond doubt that monies are payable by the fourth respondent to the petitioner, the fourth respondent cannot be made as a garnishee, by solely relying upon the submission of the petitioner. Therefore, at this juncture, no Writ of Mandamus, as sought, can be issued, in the light of the stand taken by the fourth respondent, vide their letter, dated 20.11.2001, stating that, there is no money payable by them to the petitioner.
5. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with an observation that, if still monies are due and payable by the fourth respondent to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer with adequate records, and if the same is done, the Assessing Officer should issue notice to the fourth respondent and the petitioner, and hear the parties, and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28.07.2017 Index : yes/no nmm/sd To
1. Deputy Commissioner North(C.T.) 3rd Floor Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) Enforcement (North) 1st Floor Greams Road Chennai - 600 006.
3. Commercial Tax Officer Esplanade IT Kuralagam Chennai - 600 108 T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
nmm/sd Writ Petition No.34923 of 2004 28.07.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M/S.Acilube India vs Deputy Commissioner North(C.T.)

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
28 July, 2017