@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.@mdashThe prayer in the writ petitions is as follows:
to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for demanding and collecting the arrears of sales tax and penalty for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 till the statutory remedies are over as provided under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Rules, 1959.
2. The facts of the case proceed as follows:
The petitioner-company is a dealer under the first respondent. For the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99, the first respondent has completed the assessment and levied penalty in respect of the claim made by the reduced rate of tax and exemption under C, H and F forms and they have not filed required declaration forms. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who remanded the matter to the assessing officer after setting aside the penalty imposed. The assessing officer, pursuant to the remand, made a revised assessment and passed assessment orders for the abovesaid years, imposed tax and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner again filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in AP. CST. Nos. 536 ,537 and 538 of 2006, respectively. During the pendency of appeals, the petitioner obtained interim order on condition to pay 50 per cent of the amount, but, however defaulted. Thereupon, the petitioner sought permission of the appellate authority and get the main appeals themselves for argument. The argument was offered and the judgment has been reserved. While that being the position, the first respondent, the assessing authority has taken coercive steps by approaching the banker''s of the petitioner and pressurized them to pay the amount due from the petitioner. The said action of the first respondent to recover the amount from the bankers of the petitioner, cannot be legally acceptable, particularly, when the appeals have been heard and reserved for orders. Apart from that, it is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-company was declared as a sick company by BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. With the abovesaid facts, the present writ petitions have been filed.
3. However, while making the argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken advantage of one more additional factor and development happened in between, i.e., the order reserved by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on March 23, 2007 and orders have been passed on March 20, 2007 and served on the petitioner on March 22, 2007, i.e., yesterday, in which the entire penalty imposed by the assessing officer has been set aside. However, in respect of the turnover covered by C, H and F forms, the matters have been remitted back to the assessing officer to pass assessment orders. Though the appellate authority has recorded a reasoning that in respect of various turnovers, the petitioner is in possession of "C" form which they obtained subsequent to the filing of the appeals and rejected the same on appeal and sufficient time has already been given is impermissible in law. According to the petitioner, declaration forms could be filed even at the first appellate stage or at the second appellate stage is law settled by the court. The ultimate argument is that this point can also be adjudicated before the second appellate authority, the Tribunal as the orders have been received by the petitioner only yesterday, i.e., March 22, 2007 till the appeals are filed against the operative portion of the order, the petitioner finds aggrieved on the compulsory recovery of the tax may be stayed by this Court or appropriate direction may be given to the authorities concerned.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and I have also heard the learned Government Advocate.
5. The statute provides a complete mechanism for filing appeal and further appeal by giving statutory period for filing first appeal or second appeal before the authorities concerned. Even worse can be taken against the petitioner, since the petitioner is having every right to file an appeal before the second appellate authority, the Tribunal within the time prescribed under the statute. Time-limit is in currency and not over as it is evident from the order which has been signed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore on March 20, 2007 and has been served on the petitioner on March 22, 2007. Hence, the petitioner is having full period of limitation for filing appeals. Till such time, the respondents can wait and proceed further.
6. Hence the following order is passed:
The respondents are hereby directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner for demanding and collecting arrears of sales tax and penalty which is the subject-matter of appeals in AP. CST Nos. 536, 537 and 538 of 2006 till the appeal time expires. It is open to the petitioner even prior to that to move the appellate authority and get interim orders.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
