TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order afresh was passed by the first respondent till date. While so, the first respondent by proceedings dated 07.03.2022, directed the second respondent to attach the bank account of the appellant for the tax liability, which was challenged in WP.No.7138 of 2022 and the said writ petition was disposed of, by the order impugned herein. It is not in dispute that the appellant has paid 15% of the disputed tax, as directed by the learned Judge, in the order dated 19.06.2018 in WP.Nos.13329 to 13332/2018. However, what was disputed on the side of the respondents is the objections dated 02.08.2018 said to have been filed by the appellant. In view of the same, the learned Judge directed the appellant to pay another 50% of Rs.42,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016, the place of business of the appellant was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials and they alleged various defects including purchase omission and consequential sales suppression, which was objected to by the appellant. While so, without issuing any notice, the appellant was served with the assessment orders dated 28.03.2018 for the assessment years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 under the TNVAT Act, 2006, levying tax along with penalty. Besides this, the first respondent passed the assessment order dated 28.03.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 levying entry tax and penalty on the paver finisher purchased by the appellant from a dealer in Gujarat, which was challenged by the appellant by filing WP.No.13320 of 2018. By order date 12.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eks therefrom. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessments in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the condition imposed, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and the writ petitions will stand automatically dismissed giving liberty to the respondent to initiate recovery proceedings. On the other hand, if the petitioner complies with the said condition, the demand of the balance tax and penalty for the assessment years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 shall remain stayed till fresh orders are passed by the respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed. Pursuant to the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f by the learned Judge, in the following terms: (i) That the matter is remitted back to the respondent for re-consideration as directed by the earlier order of this Court dated 19.06.2018 on condition that, the petitioner shall deposit or pay the 50% of Rs.42,00,000/- as indicated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Failing which, the Revenue is not precluded from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned order of attachment and for any other recovery mode to recover the tax due. (iii) Once the 50% of the said amount as indicated above is paid within the time stipulated, then the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance till the decision to be made with regard to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases . In respect of the demand raised for the year 2015-16 on entry tax, it is submitted that the same cannot be sustained because the paver finisher is not liable for entry tax as the said machinery is not a motor vehicle liable for registration under the Motor Vehicles Act and that, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of RDS Projects v. Commercial Tax Officer , 8 VST 574, has held that 'entry tax is not payable in respect of the hydraulic excavator because they are not motor vehicles falling within the definition of the term as defined under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988'. Stating so, the learned counsel submitted that without taking note of those aspects, the learned Judge directed the appellant to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Judge, in the order dated 19.06.2018 in WP.Nos.13329 to 13332/2018. However, what was disputed on the side of the respondents is the objections dated 02.08.2018 said to have been filed by the appellant. In view of the same, the learned Judge directed the appellant to pay another 50% of Rs.42,00,000/- representing the balance tax demand penalty, for the purpose of lifting the attachment made on its bank account. It is the grievance of the appellant that they have been facing serious financial crisis and due to the attachment of the bank account, they could not run their business and meet out the day today activities. 8.Though the order of the learned Judge is quite reasonable, taking note of the plight of the appellant, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
