TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to the refund of the amount of ₹ 15,79,415 paid under protest towards the additional sales tax pursuant to the said notices dated March 14, 2000 and March 21, 2000 - W.P. No. 7536 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2009 - BASHA K.N. , J. ORDER:- K.N. BASHA J. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of declaration declaring that the petitioner abovenamed is not liable to pay additional sales tax in respect of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, when the petitioner is not liable for payment of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, since their taxable turnover is less than Rs. 25 crores and further to direct the respondent above-named to refund to the petitioner the amount of additional sales tax of Rs. 15,79,415 paid by the petitioner under protest to get the bank attachment raised. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, the local Act ) and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, the Central Act ). The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion would be decided in the main writ petition itself at the time of final hearing by order of this court dated December 30, 2002. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner has disputed the liability to pay the additional sales tax under the Central Act on the ground that only in the event of taxable turnover of the petitioner exceeding Rs. 25 crores, section 2(1)(aa) is applicable for invoking the Central Act in order to demand the additional sales tax from the petitioner herein. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the taxable turnover not exceeded Rs. 25 crores in respect of the petitioner-firm during the relevant period under the local Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent cannot place reliance on the provision of section 2(1)(aa) for issuing the demand notice dated March 14, 2000 on the basis of alleging that the taxable turnover of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 40 crores under the Central Act. It is further contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay additional sales tax even as per the provision under section 8(2)(b) of the Central Act. In view of the said se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 15,79,415 paid under protest for lifting the attachment of the bank account during the pendency of this petition. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in issuing the notices dated March 14, 2000 and March 21, 2000. It is further submitted that both the notices are well within the provision of the local Act as well as within the Central Act. He would also contend that the respondent had taken all steps to collect the additional sales tax with authority of law provided under section 3B of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, read with rule 3. It is also submitted that the respondent has not given any undue pressure for the payment of Rs. 15,79,415. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) would further contend that as per the facts of the instant case, the question of making a provisional or final assessment before issuing the notices dated March 14, 2000 and March 21, 2000 not at all arises. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forth by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the notices issued by the respondent dated March 14, 2000 and Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the Act that only when the petitioner is liable for payment of additional sales tax under the local Act, it is open to the respondent to demand payment of additional sales tax under the Central Act. This court cannot lost sight of yet another important factor to the effect that the petitioner has given a detailed reply dated March 20, 2000 explaining the stand of the petitioner to the effect that his turnover never exceeded Rs. 25 crores during the period of relevant assessment year and as such they are not liable to pay any additional sales tax under the local Act and it is made clear in the said reply that only when the petitioner is liable for payment of additional sales tax under the local Act, it is open to the respondent to demand payment of additional sales tax under the Central Act. But, unfortunately, the counter is silent in respect of the explanation and the reply given by the petitioner dated March 20, 2000 except making a bald reference to the said reply given by the petitioner. Such being the position, this court is of the considered view that there is much force in the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
