AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Antony Dominic
Assessment under the CST Act for the year 2001-02 was completed against the petitioner. That was challenged in an appeal and was remanded for fresh assessment. Accordingly, by Ext. P1, the assessment was completed on 6/4/2009. Following the assessment, requisition was made to the revenue recovery authorities as per Ext. P3 and thereupon Ext. P4 notice has been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to make payment. At that stage, petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that by Ext. P2 dated 29/6/12, he had requested for giving credit to payment of Rs. 1,00,000 made on 24/2/2009. It is complaining that orders on Ext. P2 were not passed and also seeking to quash Exts. P1, P3 and P4, this writ petition is filed. In so far as the challenge against Ext. P1 is concerned, not only that it is belated but also that if at all the petitioner had any grievance, it was for him to have pursued the statutory remedies that are available. That having not done and on account of the delay and latches, that prayer cannot be granted. In so far as Exts. P3 and P4 are concerned, they are issued for recovering the amount due under Ext. P1. Therefore, these proceedings being consequential in nature also cannot be impugned. Now coming to Ext. P2, where the petitioner seeks credit of Rs. 1,00,000/- he has paid, a reading of Ext. P3 requisition itself shows that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the petitioner as per demand draft dated 24/2/2009 has already been given credit and it is only the balance amount that is sought to be recovered. Therefore, nothing further remains to be done on Ext. P2. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.