PAVAN AGRO INDUSTRIES Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE partnership firms have joined together in this writ petition to challenge the validity of the demand notices issued by the assessing authority for collection of the tax found to be due from them by virtue of the provisional orders of assessment. Various contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramam, touching the merits of the provisional assessment. He has also raised the contention with reference to the interpretation of the guidelines issued in 1992. We do not propose to express any opinion on those contentions for the simple reason that the petitioners have statutory alternative remedy of appeal where all these contentions can be legitimately raised. On the ground that the petitioners have effective alternative remedy, we are not inclined to admit the writ petition. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(2.) SRI Ramam submits that though under the rules the petitioners have a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice to pay the tax in demand, the assessing authority has reduced the period to fifteen days in one case and ten days in the case of the other two petitioners. He, therefore, prays that this Court may order stay of recovery of tax for a period of thirty days from the date of service of the demand. There can be no doubt that the assessing authority has power to reduce the period of thirty days, but for that, the authority has to give reasons. From the demands produced before us, we do not find any reason for reducing the period. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to allow the petitioners the full period of thirty days, as contemplated under law, and direct the respondents not to collect the tax for a period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand on the petitioners.