9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. 2. Petitioner is a dealer in electrical components and an assessee on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Ranipet, Vellore District, the 1st respondent herein, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, hereinafter referred to as VAT Act, in TIN No: 22914283402 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the C.S.T. Act. On 02.08.2012, the 2nd respondent, along with his officials, conducted a spot inspection at the petitioner's business premises, presumably in terms of Section 65 of the VAT Act, 2006 and verified various records maintained by the petitioner in the course of business. At the time of inspection, the officials have verified day book, ledger, computerized sale invoices and purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enged by the petitioner on the ground that the enforcement wing officials have no jurisdiction to collect the tax even before the assessment order is passed by the 1st respondent and therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is highly arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, the action of the first respondent in attaching the bank account pending assessment for the respective years is totally unwarranted. It is also stated that the power to conduct an inspection has been postulated under Section 65 of the T.N.V.A.T. Act, 2006 which clearly defines the power to order production of accounts, power of entry, inspection, etc. and in the Section, it is nowhere stated that the inspecting officials have powers to forcibly collect the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n only there can be any demand for tax. It is also his submission that in the present case, without due assessment the authorities had straight away written to the bank attaching petitioner's bank account which, under no stretch of imagination, can be sustained and this action of the respondents is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) would contend that on inspection by the Enforcement Wing of the department and on the surprise check conducted by the officials, at the time of inspection, an amount has been collected from the petitioner. However, only a part of the amount has been realised and the remaining amount had not been realised. Learned Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner's case that the inspecting officials have forcibly collected the taxes from the petitioner and appropriated the same towards taxes without even finalization of the said assessment. Petitioner made a representation wherein all the defects noticed had been explained and the 1st respondent had been requested to withhold the cheque amount of Rs. 3,75,699/- which was forcibly collected by the inspecting officials at the time of inspection viz. on 02.08.2012. While the 2nd respondent had forcibly collected a cheque for Rs. 3,75,699/- from the petitioner, after realization of Rs. 1,01,249/- the 1st respondent has issued Form U notice to the 3rd respondent bank for the balance recovery of Rs. 2,74,450/- which is impugned herein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registers, records or other documents of the dealer as he may consider necessary, and shall give the dealer a receipt for the same. The accounts, registers, records and documents so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceeding under this Act. " 10. Section 45 of the Act contemplates the mode of recovery of tax, which is as follows : " 45, Further mode of recovery :- (1) The assessing authority may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing a copy of which shall be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority require - (a) any person from whom money is due or may become due to the dealer, or to any person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icials on 02.08.2012 and on the same day, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,75,699/- was collected from the assessee other than a sum of Rs. 2,000/- collected towards compounding fee. In fact, the 1st respondent is the original assessing authority. Though, it is the 2nd respondent who had conducted the spot inspection, after noticing the discrepancies in the books of accounts, etc., the 2nd respondent ought to have either issued a notice to the petitioner pointing out all the discrepancies or he should have intimated the discrepancies to the 1st respondent for further course of action. On the alleged discrepancies, either the 2nd respondent or the 1st respondent, should have heard the assessee and then pass an order demanding whatever be the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
