T.K. Komu Haji vs. The Joint Commissioner

Facts

The appellant, T.K. Komu Haji, proprietor of T.K. Supari, filed a writ petition challenging a notice of attachment (Ext.P2) issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Arrear Recovery) under Section 35(1) of the KVAT Act, which attached his bank account. The appellant then submitted a representation (Ext.P3) requesting the acceptance of alternative property as security for the tax arrears and the withdrawal of the bank account attachment. The writ petition sought directions for the respondents to consider this representation. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The present writ appeal is filed against this dismissal. It is not disputed that a sum of ₹99,13,146/- is due from the appellant towards tax arrears, and assessment orders have become final.

Held

The Court acknowledged that a sum of ₹99,13,146/- is due from the appellant towards tax arrears, and the assessment orders have attained finality, with revenue recovery proceedings already initiated. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the Court directed the respondents to consider the appellant's representation (Ext.P3) and take a decision on it in accordance with the law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The ratio decidendi is that while the revenue recovery process for undisputed tax arrears is permissible, the authorities should consider alternative security proposals if made by the taxpayer, provided such consideration is in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of with this specific direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the attachment of the appellant's bank account for tax arrears. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, as the primary prayer was for a direction to consider his representation offering alternative security for the tax dues and to withdraw the bank account attachment. The appellant sought a reconsideration of his representation. Revenue/State: The respondents contended that the tax arrears of ₹99,13,146/- are undisputed, the assessment orders are final, and revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated. They did not explicitly argue against the consideration of the representation but highlighted the finality of the assessment and the necessity of recovery.