Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 475 (PAT)

Amar Prasad Sahu v. State Of Bihar

2003-04-24

AFTAB ALAM

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. K.D.Chatterjee, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the J.C. to A.A.G. II for the State. Having regard to the nature of grievances of the petitioner and the order proposed this case is disposed of on the date it is listed for the first time. 2. This writ petition arises from a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery Act registered as Certificate Case No. 3 of 2001-02 before the Certificate Officer, Patna and the petitioner challenges a notice bearing no. 233/H, dated 5.3.2003 (Annexure 6) issued by the Certificate Officer. The notice states that the proceeding for realisation of the sum of Rs. 43,26, 733.05 as sales tax dues was pending against the petitioner for long and no payments were made by him; that a last opportunity was being allowed to the petitioner to deposit the dues by 22.3.2003 failing which orders for attachment of his moveable and immoveable properties would be passed and warrant of arrest would be issued against him. 3. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the sales tax dues were against the company, namely, Ranjan Chemicals Limited of which the petitioner was a Director only upto 1994. The petitioner was, therefore, not liable to pay the alleged dues against the company. Learned counsel further submitted that the notice was, in any event, wholly illegal and unjustified because objections filed by the petitioner under section 14, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the issuance of the notice, threatening the petitioner with attachment of properties and arrest was quite arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable even without disposing of his objections under section 9 of the Act. 4. In support of the statement that the petitioners objections filed under section 9 of the Act remained undisposed of Mr. Chatterjee produced a certified copy of the order sheet of the proceeding. Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, J.C. to A.A.G. Il appearing for the respondents carefully went through the order sheet, particularly from 23.3.2002 (the date of filing the objections) to 5.3.2003 (the date of issuance of the impugned notice) and confirmed that though an objection petition was filed by the petitioner in the proceeding it remained undisposed of atleast till the issuance of the notice. That being the position the impugned notice is clearly unsustainable in law and it must be set aside. 5. The impugned notice, dated 5.3.2003 is accordingly set aside. 6. That being the position the impugned notice is clearly unsustainable in law and it must be set aside. 5. The impugned notice, dated 5.3.2003 is accordingly set aside. 6. At the same time the petitioner is directed to appear before the Certificate Officer, along with a copy of this order, within three weeks from today. The Certificate Officer will fix a date of hearing on the objections filed by the petitioner so that the objections raised by the petitioner are considered and duly disposed of preferably within two months from the date of the petitioners appearance before the Certificate Officer. Further proceedings in the certificate case, needless to say, will abide the orders passed on the petitioners objections. 7. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and subject to the observations and directions made above.