2016 (9) TMI 771 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court suspends payment demand, allows petitioner to settle dues in installments. Fair assessment and personal hearing emphasized.

Tvl. Goodwill Team Papers Limited, Represented by its Director, P. Rajendran, S/o. Pandiarajan Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thirumangalam Assessment Circle, Madurai

The court suspended the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner demanding payment of &8377;59,82,269 from the petitioner. The petitioner, who had ... Recovery of dues - Wrong calculation of balance loan amount - ignorance of subsequent payments made by the petitioner - defferal loan of ₹ 1,70,25,455/- availed - payment of ₹ 1,45,17,406/- constituting 85% of the total amount made so far - petitioner liable to pay only a sum of ₹ 25,08,049/- - demand of ₹ 59,82,269/- made from petitioner towards balance loan amount - two demand drafts brought by petitioner to show his bonafides - opportunity of personal hearing - Held that: - the amount taken by the petitioner by way of Demand Drafts if deposited with the respondent, the respondent will consider the representation of the petitioner after giving due notice. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the representation by providing personal hearing only after considering the case of the petitioner afresh, a fresh order may be passed. The impugned order shall be kept in abeyance - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:1. Incorrect calculation by the 2nd respondent in demanding payment from the petitioner.2. Discrepancy in the amount demanded compared to the outstanding loan balance.3. Request for installment payment plan by the petitioner to clear the dues.4. Representation by the petitioner for a fair assessment of the outstanding amount.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, an Assistant Commissioner, demanding a payment of &8377; 59,82,269. The petitioner contended that the calculation was incorrect, especially considering the payments already made towards a deferral loan amount of &8377; 1,70,25,455.2. The petitioner argued that they had paid &8377; 1,45,17,406, constituting 85% of the total amount, and should only be liable to pay &8377; 25,08,049. The petitioner highlighted the repayment schedule starting from July 2006 and ending in July 2015, emphasizing the financial challenges faced while making periodical payments.3. Seeking relief, the petitioner proposed a 10-installment plan to clear the outstanding amount, demonstrating their willingness to settle the dues in good faith. The petitioner even presented two Demand Drafts totaling &8377; 3,00,000 as a gesture of commitment towards resolving the issue through structured payments.4. The court directed the impugned order to be suspended, allowing the realization of the Demand Drafts submitted by the petitioner. It instructed the respondents to re-evaluate the case, considering the petitioner's representation and providing a fair opportunity for a personal hearing. The judgment emphasized the need for a fresh assessment before issuing any new order, with a provision for the petitioner to clear the dues in 10 equal installments upon reaching a mutual agreement.