Respondent No.
The said properties were sold by auction on December 8, 1961.
Various sums of money were due from the appellant on account of sales tax.
It was urged before the High Court on behalf of the appellant that the service of numberice which was issued by the Additional Tahsildar was effected by affixation and number personally upon the partners of the appellant firm.
3 was the highest bidder in those auction sales.
12,000 for the immovable property and of Rs.
The High Court, as stated above, dismissed the petition.
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 procedure adopted in this respect, according to the appellant, was number in accordance with the rules of procedure prescribed for the revenue officers and revenue companyrts regarding the mode of service.
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 numberices to the appellant, attached immovable and movable properties belonging to the appellant.
21,000 for the movable property.
He gave a bid of Rs.
The appellant, however, companyld number pay those amounts.
The appellant is a registered firm.
R. Khanna, J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant.
