CRESCENT TRADE LINKS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Crescent Trade Links represented by its Managing Partner AA. Mohammed Ziaudeen, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the first respondent in TIN: 33721762525/2015 -16, dated 05.06.2015, to quash the same with further direction to the first respondent to complete assessment and pass further order on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a partnership firm having registered under the Partnership Act is involved in the activity of trading of ceramic tiles, ceramic sanitary ware sinks, batch showers, pipes and fittings. It is also having its registered office in Coimbatore along with branches and godowns in various places in Coimbatore. While so, there was an inspection at the premises of the petitioner on 10.04.2015. In the course of the inspection various allegations were made against the petitioner with regard to the short payment of tax. The following defects were also pointed out:

(2.) THE petitioner also offered explanation on each of the issues in the course of the inspection itself to the second respondent herein. However, the second respondent refused to accept the explanation and arbitrarily arrived at alleged tax demand of Rs. 42,72,722/ -. The second respondent once again arbitrarily demanded payment of the same and asked for issuance of the cheque. Accordingly, to avoid embarrassment and further not to precipitate the issue, the petitioner was compelled to issue two cheques namely, cheque No. 188422 dated 10.04.2015 for Rs. 16,00,000/ - and cheque No. 188423, dated 10.04.2015 for Rs. 20,00,000/ -. Petitioner immediately at the time of issuing the cheque under compulsion explained before them that they do not have sufficient money in the Bank, inspite of it the second respondent collected the two cheques and when there being no assessment order either provisionally or finally, the respondent has no authority or power to issue the notice asking the petitioner to pay cash along with penalty under Section 42(3) of the Act.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (T) who takes notice for the respondents.