2022 (7) TMI 46 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court orders lifting attachment notice under Rule 9(4) of TN VAT Rules upon additional deposit.

M/s. Janaranjam Enterprises Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer (Commercial Tax Department), The State Bank of India, The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, of State Taxes (Legacy), Chennai - 1.

The court ordered the lifting of the attachment notice for recovery of money under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, upon the petitioner ... Validity of Attachment notice - recovery of money due under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 - It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Assessment Order, pursuant to which, the impugned recovery notice in Form-U has been issued is now the subject matter of review before the Commercial Tax Officer, Thirumullaivoyal Assessment Circle/first respondent herein - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has not continued the business due to outbreak of Covid-19 and considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,52,165/- being 25% of the disputed tax, the lifting of the attachment order in the impugned notice in Form-U under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, is ordered, subject to the petitioner paying/depositing another sum of Rs.50,000/-. As and when, the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- is deposited by the petitioner, the impugned notice for recovery of money due shall stand automatically vacated. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Issues: Challenge of impugned attachment notice for recovery of money under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007; Review of Assessment Order pending before Commercial Tax Officer; Appeal against the order with mandatory pre-deposit pending before Appellate Deputy Commissioner.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the impugned attachment notice for recovery of money under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, stating that the Assessment Order is under review by the Commercial Tax Officer. Additionally, an appeal with a mandatory pre-deposit of 25% is pending before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.2. The petitioner contended that the taxed amount was incurred for purchasing capital goods for manufacturing, not for sale and purchase of ceramic tiles. The petitioner explained this, but it was allegedly ignored. The business had temporarily closed due to the Covid-19 outbreak, and the petitioner received a purchase order for supply of spare parts after a long period, leading to the freezing of funds by the impugned recovery notice.3. The petitioner requested that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the Assessment Order be disposed of by the first and third respondents or the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner sought the lifting of the impugned recovery attachment/proceedings until the disposal of the proceedings by the authorities.4. The Additional Government Pleader for the first and third respondents opposed the petitioner's prayer, stating that the recovery notice was issued before the appeal was filed. The Additional Government Pleader suggested that if the petitioner pays an additional 25%, the order would be lifted.5. After considering the arguments, the court ordered the lifting of the attachment order in the impugned notice upon the petitioner depositing an additional sum of Rs.50,000, in addition to the already deposited 25% of the disputed tax amount. The order did not hinder the Appellate Deputy Commissioner from securing the Department's interest before disposing of the appeal, expected to be completed within three months from the date of the order.6. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the above observations, with no costs incurred, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly.