VANITHA AGENCIES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CT IV SIVAKASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to return the cheques of Indian Bank, Sivakasi, collected by the second respondent, on 08. 10. 2009, in Cheque No. 985128, for Rs. 1 lakh, in Cheque No. 985129 for Rs. 1 lakh, in Cheque No. 985130 for Rs. 1 lakh and in Cheque No. 985131 for Rs. 45,906.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer on the files of the first respondent. While so, on 08. 10. 2009, the second respondent, who had issued the Certificate of Registration in Form 'd', issued under the Tamil nadu value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the certificate in Form 'b' issued under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which are effective from 15. 04. 2009. It has also been stated that the earlier the firm by name 'vanitha Agencies' was a registered dealer, having the TIN No. 3329630837 and CST. No. 511606. Due to certain family arrangement, the said 'vanitha Agencies' stopped its business and fresh registration had been obtained by the present petitioner on a fresh constitution of the firm. Accordingly, TIN No. 33746022269, had been allotted to the present petitioner by name 'vanitha Agencies'. As such, the petitioner is carrying on business of buying and selling fire works, including coloured matches, liable to be taxed at the rate of 12. 5%, falling under Sl. No. 35 of Part 'c' of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006. The petitioners had opted to pay the tax under Section 3 (4) of the Value Added Tax act, in as much as the sale of taxable goods for a year will be less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Accordingly, they were filing their returns in Form 'k', as per Rule 7 (1) (d) of the Value Added Tax Rules. The petitioner had filed return upto the month of September, 2009 and paid the taxes on the disclosed turnover. While so, on 08. 10. 2009, there was an inspection by the Office of the second respondent, under instructions from the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. They had verified the account books and the related documents, including the purchase bills and the sale bills. At the time of the inspection, the invoices issued by the present firm contained the old TIN Number, which was not correct. However, at the time of the verification, it was found that the turnover as per the said invoices raised containing the old TIN number were tallied as per the books and it was found that they had been fully disclosed in the returns for which taxes were paid. However, the second respondent, assuming that there was suppression of facts, had directed the petitioner to pay the tax on the turnover of rs. 27,67,244/- at 12. 5% interest, amounting to Rs. 3,45,906/-, being the sales turnover upto 07. 10. 2009. They have also collected four cheques of the Indian bank, Sivakasi on the same day, along with the composition fee of Rs. 2,000/-

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to demand and collect any amount of tax, in as much as he is not the assessing authority, as defined under section 2 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the collection of the amount by the second respondent by way of the cheques, issued by the petitioner during the time of inspection, on 08. 10. 2009, is without the authority of law.