JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Heard Dr. B. P. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. C. Phukan, leanred Government Advocate, Assam.
2. The controversy between the parties in the present writ application lies within a narrow compass. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the A.G.S.T. Act, 1993, claims that an amount of Rs. 7,64,888 was collected from the writ petitioner by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 by force and that realization of tax in such manner is plainly contrary to law. Consequently, relief has been claimed for return of the amount in question and other consequential reliefs.
3. The claims made in the writ petition have been resisted by the State authority by filing an affidavit. In para 5 thereof, it has been contended that the petitioner had defaulted in submission of monthly returns for the months of June and July, 2001 and the annual returns for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The allegations of forcible collection of money on account of tax has been denied in the affidavit and the stand taken by the State is that the said amount has been voluntarily tendered by the petitioner and the same is in the nature of payment on account of advance tax.
4. It will neither be necessary nor possible for this Court to determine whether the circumstances in which the amount has been claimed by the petitioner-assessee to have been realised in correct. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act and the assessment of the turnover exigible to tax, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, has to be regularly made by the respondent-authority. The statements made in the affidavit of the respondents that the petitioner had not filed its annual returns for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, have been denied. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the annual return for both the aforesaid periods have been duly filed by the petitioner-assessee and for the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessment has been duly made. However, it is submitted by Dr. Todi that the assessment for the year 2000-01 is yet to be completed as the statutory time limit for competion of the assessment is not yet over.
5. As the assessment of the petitioner for the year 2000-01 is yet to be completed and the assessment for further periods is likely to follow, this Court is of the view that instead of passing any order for return of the amount collected from the petitioner, this writ petition may be appropriately closed with a direction that the amount of Rs. 7,64,888 deposited by the petitioner-assessee in favour of the department shall be kept in custody of the department until the same stands fully liquidated by appropriate adjustment against the dues of the petitioner in respect of its turnover.
6. The writ petitioner stands closed with the above directions.