AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner-M/s. Blue Crystal Chemicals Limited, is seeking for the following prayers.-
(a) To call for the records from the first respondent and the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Sales Tax) and the second respondent for examination in support of the contention of the petitioner, if need be, for striking down the impugned arrears wrongly raised in favour of the petitioner;
(b) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Fine Levy Warrant issued in C.Misc. No. 1700 of 1999, dated 1-10-1999 (marked as Annexure-D), and to file charge-sheet strictly in accordance with law under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act against the 2nd respondent as per the direction of the Hon''ble High Court in W.P. No. 14332 of 1998 (Annexure-C);
(c) To allow the writ petition.
The facts in brief are as under:
The petitioner is a manufacturing unit and a dealer in terms of the sales tax laws as applicable to the facts of this case. Petitioner was impleaded as a party-respondent in C. Misc. No. 1700 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bangalore. The impugned order does not relate to the petitioner but it relates to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is responsible for payment of the dues. So, the 1st respondent has to recover the arrears only from the 2nd respondent. Notwithstanding this fact, the proceedings were filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Judicial Magistrate First Class has passed an order, ordering for issuance of Fine Levy Warrant against all the respondents. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner is before this Court.
Heard Sri Sathyanarayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manjunath, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.
Sri Sathyanarayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a Division Bench''s judgment stating that this matter is covered by a judgment of this Court in Shreyas Papers Private Limited, Hubli v State of Karnataka and Others, 2000(48) Kar. L.J. 202 (HC), rendered on 22nd September, 1999. The same is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, Sri Manjunath. Sri Sathyanarayan further says that the State Government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has passed an order and he wants the same order to be passed in the case on hand. As I mentioned earlier, both the learned Counsels say that this matter is covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in Shreyas Papers Private Limited''s case, supra. It is also admitted before me that the Supreme Court has directed the State Government not to recover the tax dues from the respondent in that case with a direction to the respondent to restrain from alienating or encumbrancing through disposing of the property except in the normal course of the business. In the given set of circumstances, I deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition in the light of the Division Bench''s decision of this Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. The State Government is directed not to recover the money from the petitioner insofar as tax arrears of 2nd and 3rd respondents are concerned. Petitioner, at the same time, is restrained from alienating or encumbrancing or otherwise of the property except in the normal course of the business.
Liberty is reserved to the State Government to reopen or proceed against the petitioner in the light of the judgment to be passed in the pending special leave petition filed by the State Government in S.L.P. No. 5823 of 2000. Parties are to bear their costs.