TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 respondent. The petitioner filed the monthly returns under the Central Act in respect of the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 to the respondent and remitted the sales tax due from the petitioner. Now, the respondent issued notices dated March 14, 2000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....March 28, 2000 by a B6 notice, the bank account of the petitioner with the State Bank of India, Sivakasi was attached. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to remit the demand made without the authority of law in respect of a sum of Rs. 15,79,415 to avoid the bank attachment under protest. The petitioner also filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P. No. 11134 of 2000 seeking for the relief of directing the respondent to refund to the petitioner the additional sales tax of Rs. 15,79,415 which was paid under protest for raising the bank attachment pending disposal of the writ petition. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the question would be decided in the main writ petition itself at the time of final hearing by order of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnover of the petitioner-firm never exceeded Rs. 25 crores during the relevant period. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that ignoring and overlooking such reply, the respondent herein resorted to issue another notice, dated March 21, 2000, calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 15,79,415, failing which the petitioner was threatened that the bank account of the petitioner with the State Bank of India, Sivakasi would be attached and the said notice was received by the petitioner on March 27, 2000 and even before the expiry of seven days, on March 28, 2000, by a B6 notice, the bank account of the petitioner with the State Bank of India, Sivakasi was attached. It is further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a principal selling or buying goods through agents shall be the aggregate taxable turnover of all his agents relating to the sale or purchase of the goods of such principal within the State." A reading of the abovesaid provision makes it crystal clear that only in the event of the taxable turnover exceeds Rs. 25 crores under the local Act, then only, the dealer, namely, the assessee is liable to pay the additional sales tax as prescribed under the Additional Sales Tax Act. The categorical contention and assertion of the petitioner is to the effect that the taxable turnover never exceeded Rs. 25 crores during the relevant period of term mentioned in the notices dated March 14, 2000 and March 21, 2000. It is pertinent to note at this jun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner having disputed the computation of taxable turnover which is said to have been exceeded Rs. 40 crores as mentioned in the notice dated March 14, 2000, the respondent ought to have passed an order of provisional assessment or final assessment and without resorting to such course of action, the notices dated March 14, 2000 and March 21, 2000 were issued overlooking the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the local Act and the Central Act. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent had issued the impugned notices arbitrarily and mechanically without application of mind resulting in grave prejudice and injustice to the peti....