Case: Sial Soap Stone Factory Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

The appellant is a registered firm. Various sums of money were due from the appellant on account of sales tax. The appellant, however, could not pay those amounts. Recovery certificate for recovery of Rs. 30, 000 on account of the sales tax was issued by the sales tax authorities to the Revenue Officer. The Additional Tahsildar, Sales Tax, after issuing notices to the appellant, attached immovable and movable properties belonging to the appellant. The said properties were sold by auction on December 8, 1961. Respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder in those. He gave a bid of Rs. 12, 000 for the immovable property and of Rs. 21, 000 for the movable property. The appellant, after agitating the matter before the revenue authorities, filed petition under article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the attachment and sale of the said properties. The High Court, as stated above, dismissed the petition.

Reasoning:
The contention of Mr. Goyal regardinge with rules 11 to 14, in our opinion, is not. As mentioned above, service was effected by affixation. The report of ther shows that before he affixed the notice, a partner of them had declined to accept the notice. There are a number of other reports which also show that the partners of the appellant declined on various occasions to accept notices which were sent to them in connection with the recovery proceedings. There can also be no manner of doubt that the partners of them were aware of the attachment and the proposede of the properties in question. We may refer in this connection to a letter dated November 24, 1967, addressed by a partner of them to the sales tax recovery officer. In the said letter, it was admitted by the partner of them that he had received notice of the auction of the properties in dispute. On an earlier occasion the counsel for the appellant prayed for time to pay the amount of the sales tax due. The amount, however, was not paid in spite of the fact that ten days time was granted to do the needful. We, therefore, find no valid ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.