KALISWARI FIRE WORKS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of Declaration declaring that the petitioner above named is not liable to pay additional sales tax in respect of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 when the petitioner is not liable for payment of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, since their taxable turnover is less than Rs.25 Crores and further to direct the respondent above named to refund to the petitioner the amount of additional sales tax of Rs.15,79,415/- paid by the petitioner under protest to get the bank attachment raised.

(2.) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Local Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent. The petitioner filed the monthly returns under the Central Act in respect of the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 to the respondent and remitted the sales tax due from the petitioner. Now, the respondent issued notices dated 14.3.2000 and 20.3.2000 in respect of the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 under the Central Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay an additional sales tax at the rate of 2% on the alleged ground that in the computation of the rates of sales tax under the Central Act, it is open as per the decision of this Court reported in 90 STC 84, to reckon with additional sales tax mentioned in Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Act and the petitioner sent a detailed reply for the said notices to the respondent on 20.03.2000 contending that they were not liable for payment of additional sales tax. It is mainly stated in the said reply dated 20.3.2000 that as under the Local Act, the turnover of the petitioner for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is less than Rs.25 Crores, the petitioner is not liable for additional sales tax as the rate of sales tax is only 11% under the Local Act.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that after sending such reply dated 20.3.2000 to the notice issued by the respondent dated 14.3.2000, yet another notice dated 21.3.2000 was issued to the petitioner calling upon them to pay immediately on receipt of the same, the additional sales tax as demanded, failing which that the respondent would take coercive steps against the petitioner. It is stated that the said notice was received by the petitioner on 27.3.2000 and even before the expiry of seven days on 28.3.2000 by a B-6 Notice, the Bank account of the petitioner with the State Bank of India, Sivakasi was attached. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to remit the demand made without the authority of law in respect of a sum of Rs.15,79,415/- to avoid the bank attachment under protest. The petitioner also filed a Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.11134/2000 seeking for the relief of directing the respondent to refund to the petitioner the additional sales tax of Rs.15,79,415/- which was paid under protest for raising the bank attachment pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the question would be decided in the main writ petition itself at the time of final hearing by order of this Court dated 30.12.2002.