D.KANNAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a dealer under the KVAT Act. According to him, subsequent to Ext.P1, he approached the second respondent for compounding the offences against him and that the second respondent issued Ext.P2 order allowing compounding under Section 74 of the Act on the petitioner remitting Rs.8 lakhs towards compounding fee. He says that compounding fee was remitted by Ext.P3 receipt and that tax and interest thereon was also paid in instalments evidenced by Ext.P4 series of receipts.

(2.) HE says that in view of the provisions of Circular No.43 of 2008 issued by the Commissioner, the payments made by him should have been entered in KVATIS and made a request in this behalf to respondents 1 and 2 as per Exts.P5 and P6 representations. It is stated that immediately thereafter, he filed Ext.P7 manual return also before the first respondent. On account of the refusal of the first respondent to accept Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioner says that he e.mailed Exts.P6 and P7 to the first respondent as per Exts.P8 and P8(a). It is also his case that thereafter, he sent these documents by Courier, the receipt of which is acknowledged by Exts.P9 and P10. It is thereafter that this writ petition was filed apprehending rejection of Ext.P7 and seeking a direction to the respondents to credit the payments made by him as per Ext.P4 in the KVATIS.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed his reply affidavit also.