2019 (2) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings dated 29.08.2018 of the first respondent, wherein and whereby, he directed the second respondent to create encumbrance on the subject matter properties referred to in this writ petition. 3. Following are the short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition: One M/s.Ashok Spinners, Udumalpet, were the registered dealer before the Commercial Tax Officer, Udulmalpet (North). An order dated 29.07.2008 was passed by the Assessing Officer against the said dealer confirming the levy of penal interest of Rs. 4,68,175/- as proposed in the notices dated 10.01.2008 and 15.04.2008. For the purp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... recent decision of this Court in WP.No.30793 of 2007 dated 31.10.2017. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent, on the other hand, contended that since the said dealer was assessed by imposing penal interest, the impugned proceedings was issued in order to safeguard the interest of the Revenue since those properties were belonging to the partners of the said M/s.Ashok Spinners. However, he is not disputing the fact that no attachment was made on those properties at any point of time and that the purchases made by the petitioner were prior to the date of assessment order dated 29.07.2008. 6. Heard both sides. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the present impugned communication was issued by the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....another Vs.R.K.Streels reported in (1998) 108 STC 161, in the case of Raghuvar (India) Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) I, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur reported in (2006) 144 STC 331, in the case of D.Senthil Kumar and others Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Erode and another reported in [2006] 148 STC 204 (Mad) and in the case of Rukmani Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CDJ 2012 MHC 5515), allowed the similar writ petition filed by the similarly situated purchasers and set aside the impugned proceedings therein. At Paragraph No.3 of the said order, it has been observed as follows: "3. In the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thudiyalur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore and another Vs.R.K.Streels reported in (1998) 101 STC 1....