ASTEK ELECTRICALS AND CONTROLS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged a notice issued in Form U (Notice for recovery of money) dated 27.02.2013 to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Vellore Main Branch, Vellore 632 004, the 3rd respondent attaching the Bank Account of the petitioner, quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent herein to lift the attachment of the Bank Account of the petitioner. Petitioner is a dealer in electrical components and an assessee on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Ranipet, Vellore District, the 1st respondent herein, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, hereinafter referred to as VAT Act, in TIN No.: 22914283402 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the C.S.T. Act. On 02.08.2012, the 2nd respondent, along with his officials, conducted a spot inspection at the petitioner's business premises, presumably in terms of Section 65 of the VAT Act, 2006 and verified various records maintained by the petitioner in the course of business. At the time of inspection, the officials have verified day book, ledger, computerized sale invoices and purchase invoices relating to the assessment year 2012 -2013 and alleged that the petitioner has claimed ITC wrongly due to E1 sales not proved; stock variation and stocks were kept in the un -registered godown. As many as 8 defects were framed at the time of inspection and a cheque for Rs. 3,75,699/ - was forcibly collected from the petitioner towards tax due on the alleged defects. The 2nd respondent Enforcement Wing officials have compounded the offence and collected a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - on the date of inspection. The 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to direct any payment of taxes without even an order of assessment or demand thereof by the 1st respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing authority. It is the petitioner's case that the inspecting officials have forcibly collected the taxes from the petitioner and appropriated the same towards taxes without even finalization of the said assessment. Petitioner made a representation wherein all the defects noticed had been explained and the 1st respondent had been requested to withhold the cheque amount of Rs. 3,75,699/ - which was forcibly collected by the inspecting officials at the time of inspection viz. on 02.08.2012. While the 2nd respondent had forcibly collected a cheque for Rs. 3,75,699/ - from the petitioner, after realization of Rs. 1,01,249/ - the 1st respondent has issued Form U notice to the 3rd respondent bank for the balance recovery of Rs. 2,74,450/ - which is impugned herein.

(2.) THE above notice has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the enforcement wing officials have no jurisdiction to collect the tax even before the assessment order is passed by the 1st respondent and therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is highly arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, the action of the first respondent in attaching the bank account pending assessment for the respective years is totally unwarranted. It is also stated that the power to conduct an inspection has been postulated under Section 65 of the T.N.V.A.T. Act, 2006 which clearly defines the power to order production of accounts, power of entry, inspection, etc. and in the Section, it is nowhere stated that the inspecting officials have powers to forcibly collect the cheques from the petitioner at the time of inspection.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondents 1 & amp; 2.