9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively and as the payment has been made, the attachment should go. There should not be any difficulty in quashing and setting aside the two impugned notices. Once the impugned notices are quashed, the attachment as per such notices would no longer survive and once the attachment goes, the charge, which has been created over the property pursuant to such notices, would also not survive - application allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act"). The sales tax exemption granted to the LD unit expired in 09.03.2002. (3.2) In 1994, the Petitioner, in the same premises where the LD Unit was operating, commenced another manufacturing unit referred to as the Ribbon Unit which was for the manufacture of Glass Shells. This Unit was in the nature of backward integration of the existing LD Unit. This unit was also registered with the Sales Tax Department with the same registration number as that of the LD Unit. The sales tax exemption granted to the Ribbon Unit was expired in 29.03.2004. (3.3) As both the units of the Petitioner was operating as an integrated unit for manufacture of Glass shells and the lighting plant for assembly of electric bulbs, lamps and tubes; the Petitioner was filing a single consolidated return and was claiming exemption under Entry 255 of the notification issued under Section 49(2) of the GST Act. It is pertinent to note here that all the assessments upto the year 19992000 were finalized and exemption was allowed to the Petitioner. (3.4) The Respondent No. 3 issued show cause notices in March 2004 alleging that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner under Entry 255 of the notification issued under Section 49(2) of the GST Act. However, certain tax liabilities were fastened on the petitioner on separate issues not related to the exemption. The details of the Assessment Orders for the year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are as under: S. No. Period Assessment order dated Other tax liability 1 2001-02 30.09.2006 1,14,843/ 2 2006-07 '04.05.2011 1,89,56,643/ 3 2007-08 17.10.2011 37,222/ Total 1,91,08,708/ (3.10) Thereafter, the Respondent No. 5 issued two Notices both dated 18.01.2012 under Section 152 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 stating that the property of the Petitioner shall be seized if the outstanding sales tax liability for the year 2001-02 and 2007-08 is not paid within 10 days of the receipt of the Notice. (3.11) Further, the Respondent No. 5 issued a Notice dated 02.02.2012 under Section 152 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 stating that the property of the Petitioner shall be seized under Section 200, if the outstanding sales tax liability for the year 2006-07 is not paid within 7 days of the receipt of the Notice. (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional documents for claiming compensation. (3.19) A letter dated 20.11.2015 was issued to the Petitioner by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda intimating that the Order is passed to acquire the land situated at Moje Nadiad Chaklashi having Survey No. 3342 admeasuring 356 Sq. Mts. And Survey No. 3343/P admeasuring 2417 Sq. Mts. For construction of National Highway [this land was part of the property which was attached by the Respondent No. 3]. Further, the Petitioner was requested to submit the information with regard to the dues of the Government. (3.20) In response to the letter dated 20.11.2015 of Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Petitioner filed two Letters dated 07.12.2015 vide which it was submitted that there are no Government dues on Survey No. 3342 & 3343. The Petitioner further submitted that the Government due of ₹ 1,91,08,708/is on other surveys of the land belonging to the Petitioner and such dues have already been paid by the Petitioner. Thus, it was requested to release the compensation amount of 2,20,21,115/(₹ 20,29,200 + 1,99,91,915/). (3.21) Respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 09.12.2015 to the Project ct Director, Natio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, no further adjudication of this writ application is necessary. We take notice of the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply: "10 The issue in the present petition pertains to the assessment year 2000-2001, 20012002, 2006-2007 to 20072008 for which assessment orders has been passed for the respective assessment years: Assessment year Date of order Amount payable 2000-2001 31.03.2005 ₹ 5,07,98,532/ 20012002 13.08.2008 ₹ 1,14,843/ 2006-2007 31.03.2011 ₹ 1,77,96,677/ 20072008 19.10.2011 ₹ 37,222/ 11. I say and submit that the petitioner herein paid an amount of pre-deposit amounting to ₹ 51,53,367/ before the first appellate authority, when the assessment order qua assessment year 2000-2001 was challenged. Whereas, for remaining amount of ₹ 5,07,98,532/, the petitioner had given bank guarantee for a period of 3 months which stands expired as on date. It is further required to be noted. that. for` the assessment year 2001-2002, the entire amount was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant has been acquired by the respondent No.5. The acquisition proceedings have attained finality. The writ applicant is awaiting for compensation. However, compensation is not being paid because the order of attachment and the charge over such parcels of land. 9. So far as the present litigation is concerned, we are not going into the issue of acquisition and compensation. We may only say that once the notices are quashed and the attachment pursuant to such notices would no longer survive, it is for the writ applicant to point out this fact to the respondent No.5 and claim compensation in accordance with law. 10. Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State respondents submits that this would not be the end of the matter. There are other dues which are payable by the writ applicant. We are not going into this issue because we are called upon to look into the two impugned notices and with respect to the two impugned notices, the State has accepted that the payment has been made by the writ applicant. 11. We take notice of the fact that there is an appeal preferred by the writ applicant against the final order of assessment for the year 2000-01. This appeal is pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
