ANAND AGROS LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BHONGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Company established solvent extraction unit in 1993 and commenced commercial production in October, 1993. The petitioner was granted a final eligibility certificate dated 26-9-1994 for Sales-tax deferment for an amount of Rs.1,10,34,240.00. This was in terms of G.O.Ms.No.498, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 16-10-1989. Subsequently, in the year 1994 the petitioner-Company established another unit of refinery for refining rice bran oil produced in the solvent extraction unit. This production was commenced from 18-11-1994. The petitioner was granted final eligibility certificate dated 25-11-1995 for deferment of Sales-tax for an amount of Rs. 1,71,77,480-/. The Sales-tax authorities considered the Sales-tax payable on deoiled bran as relatable to the deferment granted to the solvent extraction unit only and passed provisional assessment order on 21-02-1998 and issued a demand notice. Appeal was preferred against it by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent and stay application in respect of collection of disputed tax was also preferred. During the pendency of hearing of the said application, the 1st respondent issued a garnishee notice. This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.7957/98. A Division Bench of this Court kept in abeyance the said recovery. The 2nd respondent then granted conditional stay by order dated 6-5-1998. The 1st respondent issued a garnishee notice and allegedly recovered an amount of Rs.11,60,767.00 from the bankers of the petitioner.

(2.) Impugning the said garnishee notice issued to the petitioner's bankers, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.16396 of 1998.It is the contention of the petitioner that the said amount of Rs. 11,60,767.00 has been collected by the 1st respondent by coercive process by giving threats etc., to the banker. It is alleged that though petitioner made request informing the 1st respondent about the conditional stay granted, the recovery was made and 3rd respondent was pressurised to part with the funds lying in the bank to the credit of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prayed in W.P. 16396/98 that the amount so recovered, by pressurising the garnishee bank, be refunded to the petitioner and pending disposal of the writ petition the 1st respondent be directed not to collect any amount by any coercive action regarding the balance tax of Rs. 39,92,570.00.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents we find that this Writ Petition does not survive. The learned Government Pleader has brought to our notice that the impugned garnishee notice has been withdrawn by the respondents by letter dated 2-7-1998. No further garnishee proceedings are now being taken. It is also stated that no further steps are being taken against the petitioner for collection of the remaining dues in view of the orders of the Joint Commissioner (C.T.). The contention raised by the petitioner that the amount was recovered by pressurising the bank is a question of fact. This cannot be decided in Writ Petition, nor can we order refund of the amount which is already collected. Unless factual aspects are gone into by appropriate authorities, order of refund cannot be made. Writ Petition is not the proper forum.