G. SIVANANDAM Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, the Respondent herein, dated December 8, 2005 by which, he has directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12,113 towards arrears of tax with interest as per Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that the establishment was started as a partnership firm consisting of the Petitioner, Mr. Saravanan and Ms. Vasanthaammal. The said partners resigned from the partnership on March 31, 2004 and therefore, the Petitioner became the sole proprietor of the said concern. Consequently, the firm was dissolved on August 23, 2005 and virtually there was no business transaction. Thereafter, the Petitioner started a new business in the name and style of "Surya Marketing" and later on the said business was also closed. Pipes India was an Assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the said company issued 3 cheques to the Respondent towards tax liability and the total worth of the said company is Rs. 16,113. Out of Rs. 16,113, the Petitioner paid tax to the tune of Rs. 4,000 by way of demand draft. He further submitted that at the time of incorporation of the said partnership firm, the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 as caution deposit and that it can very well be adjusted for any amount towards payment of tax. The Petitioner further contended that the request for refund of tax to the tune of Rs. 3,581 for the assessment year 2003-04 was pending before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and that the said amount can also be adjusted towards interest. According to the Petitioner, a sum of Rs. 2,000 paid as caution deposit and the refund amount of Rs. 3,581 can be adjusted towards the total liability of tax of Rs. 12,113. Therefore, the Petitioner made a representation, dated September 29, 2005 to the Respondent to adjust the abovesaid amounts as against tax liability. The Respondent without considering the request in proper perspective, has simply rejected the same. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the reasons assigned by the Respondent that two other partners have not signed in the representation dated September 29, 2005 seeking for adjustment is arbitrary, for the reason that the other two partners had already resigned from the partnership firm and therefore, the question of consent from them does not arise. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that when the writ Petitioner is ready and willing to pay the resale tax and arrears of tax, the Respondent ought to have considered the bona fides of the Petitioner and ordered for adjustment of the amount as stated supra. According to him, the reasons for invoking the attachment proceedings and demanding interest is mala fide and therefore, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to set aside the same.