District Magistrate Empowered To Attach Property, Not Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP). The single bench of Justice S.P.Sandesh has observed that the Commissioner of BBMP, has no authority to attach the property as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and it ought to be enforced...
The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP).
The single bench of Justice S.P.Sandesh has observed that the Commissioner of BBMP, has no authority to attach the property as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and it ought to be enforced under Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, through the collector of the District.
The petitioner/assessee, a proprietorship concern has been engaged in the catering business. The petitioner is also registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (K.S.T. Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the firm is not earning any profit on sale of food in the Canteens such sale is exempted. If the goods are not liable to be taxed under the Act, such goods are brought under Section 8 of the K.S.T. Act and such goods are exempt from payment of tax.
However, the assessing authority has concluded that the petitioner is liable to pay Sales Tax at rate of 12% on sale of food articles and accordingly levied a tax of Rs.35,25,376/-.
In view of the order passed under Section 12(3) of the KST Act, the respondent/department has issued the demand notice in Form 6 and demanded the amount for the assessment year 2001-2002.
The department has granted 21 days time to pay the arrears of tax. On account of non-payment, a petition was filed under Section 13(3)(b) of the KST Act to recover the said amount. In order to recover the amount, the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court issued an order through the Commissioner, BBMP to attach and effect encumbrance of the amount.
Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court ought not to have issued the order of attachment of property through BBMP Commissioner. Section 421 of Cr.P.C., for Warrant for levy of fine, particularly, clause (b) of Section 421, wherein, it is specifically mentioned issue a warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property or both, of the defaulter.
On the other hand, a Government Pleader appearing for the department has submitted that when the amount was not paid, the order was passed by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court, Bengaluru. Hence, there are no grounds to allow the petition.
The High Court thus allowed the petition against the impugned order passed by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax).
Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
Case No.: Criminal Revision Petition No.921/2012
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate Atul K.Alur
Counsel For Respondent: HCGP K.S.Abhijit