1.Issue notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2.By virtue of instant writ petition, challenge is laid to the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by respondent No.1, whereby tax, in the sum of Rs.1,32,168/- has been imposed, after making requisite adjustment qua tax paid.
3.A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order, as a verification of the abstract enclosed with the Form W W revealed that the petitioner had effected inter-state sale of goods for a value equivalent to Rs.50,66,542/- against C Forms. The respondent No.1, thus, concluded that though this fact was reported in Form W W, the requisite C Forms had not been filed. Accordingly, a decision was taken to reverse the corresponding ITC.
4. As against, the petitioner's stand is that he had not effected inter-state sale. The petitioner avers that he had only effected inter-state purchases for a value equivalent to Rs.50,66,542/-. 4.1 The petitioner seeks to demonstrate the same by drawing my attention to Form W W, which is appended at page 1 to 9 of the typed set of documents. 4.2 Learned counsel says that the entry made under clause 13(b) would show that inter-state purchases are shown as Rs.50,66,542/- (page 4 of the typed set of documents). 4.3 Counsel for the petitioner says that the discrepancy crept in, albeit, inadvertently, in the annexure appended to Form W W. For this purpose, he has drawn my attention to page 9 of the typed set of documents. 4.4. It is the stand of the petitioner to bring about a course correction a rectification petition dated 28.12.2016, has already been filed, which has not been disposed of, as yet. 4.5. The petitioner is, thus, aggrieved by the fact that without disposal of the rectification petition, the impugned order was passed by the respondent, followed by a consequential order dated 22.12.2016, whereby, his bank account stands attached.
5.Having regard to the assertions made in the writ petition, Mr.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent, cannot, but submit that the first respondent ought to have disposed of the rectification petition in the first instance, before passing the impugned order. It is ordered, accordingly. 5.1. The first respondent will dispose of the rectification petition. For this purpose, the petitioner's authorised representative will appear before the first respondent on 19.01.2017 at 11.00 a.m. 5.2. In case, the first respondent finds that the assertions of the petitioner is sustainable, he will rectify the order dated 29.08.2016, and, accordingly, lift the attachment order dated 22.12.2016, forthwith.
6.The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Resultantly, the connected pending application is also closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
10.01.2017 Index:Yes/No kj Note:Registry to issue order copy on 11.01.2017 To
1.The Assistant Commissioner Saibaba colony Assessment circle Coimbatore-18.
2.The Branch Manager Karur Vysya Bank Saibaba colony branch Coimbatore-641 011.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.
kj W.P.No.675 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.724 of 2017 10.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in