COIMBATORE PIONEER MILLS LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petitions is as follows: to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for demanding and collecting the arrears of sales tax and penalty for the assessment years 1996 -97, 1997 -98 and 1998 -99 till the statutory remedies are over as provided under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Rules, 1959.

(2.) THE facts of the case proceed as follows: The petitioner -company is a dealer under the first respondent. For the assessment years 1996 -97 to 1998 -99, the first respondent has completed the assessment and levied penalty in respect of the claim made by the reduced rate of tax and exemption under C, H and F forms and they have not filed required declaration forms. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who remanded the matter to the assessing officer after setting aside the penalty imposed. The assessing officer, pursuant to the remand, made a revised assessment and passed assessment orders for the abovesaid years, imposed tax and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner again filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in AP. CST. Nos. 536 ,537 and 538 of 2006, respectively. During the pendency of appeals, the petitioner obtained interim order on condition to pay 50 per cent of the amount, but, however defaulted. Thereupon, the petitioner sought permission of the appellate authority and get the main appeals themselves for argument. The argument was offered and the judgment has been reserved. While that being the position, the first respondent, the assessing authority has taken coercive steps by approaching the banker's of the petitioner and pressurized them to pay the amount due from the petitioner. The said action of the first respondent to recover the amount from the bankers of the petitioner, cannot be legally acceptable, particularly, when the appeals have been heard and reserved for orders. Apart from that, it is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner -company was declared as a sick company by BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. With the abovesaid facts, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and I have also heard the learned Government Advocate.