JUDGMENT Ms. H. N. Devani - Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Maithili Mehta is directed to waive service of rule for the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present petition, which lies in a very narrow compass, the petition is taken up for hearing today. This petition has been preferred seeking the following substantive reliefs : (1) that the assessment orders dated May 1, 2010 under the Entry Tax Act and the GVAT Act passed by the third respondent received on May 17, 2010 be quashed and set aside and the demand raised under both the Acts for payment of tax, interest and penalty be quashed. (2) That the payments made by the petitioner towards entry tax, by specifying so in the challans for the period September 2006 to January 2008, be held to be payment towards entry tax only and not towards VAT. The facts as appearing in the petition are that the petitioner who is carrying on business as a dealer, dealing in trading of yarn, is registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the GVAT Act") as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The relevant assessment period is April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. During period under consideration, the petitioner, inter alia, purchased yarn from outside the State of Gujarat and was thus, liable to pay entry tax at the rate of four per cent thereon. The petitioner calculated the amount of entry tax payable for each month and paid the same, using form No. 207 prescribed for payments under the GVAT Act, instead of form No. 1 which is the return-cum-challan prescribed under the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 ("the Entry Tax Act"). However, in each such challan, the petitioner had specified the amount as towards entry tax and payment details columns like VAT, purchase tax, etc., were kept completely blank and were not filled in. Payments of entry tax, under wrong challans were made for the period September, 2006 to January, 2008. The petitioner used to deposit counterfoils of such paid challans with the Commercial Tax Department every month. Payments of entry tax, under wrong challans were made for the period September, 2006 to January, 2008. The petitioner used to deposit counterfoils of such paid challans with the Commercial Tax Department every month. As per the provisions of the Act, yarn is one of the specified goods, therefore, any person desiring to import yarn from other States outside the State of Gujarat, has first to obtain blank form No. 403, duly pre-authenticated by the concerned jurisdictional commercial tax authority and send the same in advance to the supplier of yarn, who in turn, would have to carry the said form No. 403 duly filled in, during the transportation of goods from outside the State of Gujarat and present the same at the check-post. According to the petitioner it is a practice of the Department to pre-authenticate at a time only such number of forms as required by the dealer for a short duration of about one month. When the last of such forms are in stock, the importing dealer has again to approach the jurisdictional officer for getting the next set of such forms pre-authenticated by the officer. It is the practice of the Department to call for the counterfoils of earlier used forms and scrutinise them and to verify the payment of entry tax by the dealer concerned, for goods imported through such used forms. It is only after recording satisfaction on these counts, that the concerned officer pre-authenticates the next set of form No. 403. During the relevant period, the petitioner had obtained such pre-authenticated forms from the jurisdictional officer as many as 14 times. However, no one from the Department drew the petitioner's attention to the use of incorrect challan form No. 207 prescribed under the GVAT Act instead of correct form No. 1 as prescribed under the Entry Tax Act. Somewhere during March, 2008, the petitioner came to know of its mistake and accordingly with effect from February, 2008, the petitioner has been paying entry tax using the correct form No. 1. Vide notice dated June 15, 2009 under sections 67, 70 and 70A of the Act, the petitioner was called upon to remain present on 26th June, 2009 with the details called for in the said notice. Vide notice dated June 15, 2009 under sections 67, 70 and 70A of the Act, the petitioner was called upon to remain present on 26th June, 2009 with the details called for in the said notice. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice stating that the petitioner had by mistake and through oversight paid entry tax in form No. 207 of the Act instead of the correct form No. 1 under the Entry Tax Act. It was further pointed out that on the challans also, it was specified that the amount of tax deposited was against the liability for payment of tax under the Entry Tax Act. Thereafter, audit assessment came to be initiated against the petitioner under the GVAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice for assessment under the Entry Tax Act was issued at that time or at any time thereafter. Respondent No. 3, thereafter, made assessment orders under the Entry Tax Act as well as under the GVAT Act. Under the Entry Tax Act, it was held that since the entry tax had not been paid through proper challan form, it was to be held that entry tax had not been paid at all and accordingly, the petitioner was held liable to pay entry tax of Rs. 1,11,31,662 afresh, penalty of Rs. 61,78,072 under section 17(2) in the nature of interest towards alleged late or non-payment of entry tax and penalty of Rs. 66,78,997 under section 17(1) for non-compliance with the provisions of section 3 and section 10 of the Entry Tax Act and non-compliance with rules 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Rules, 2001 due to alleged failure to pay entry tax. It is further the case of the petitioner that entry tax paid/payable under the Entry Tax Act is admissible as input-tax credit to the dealer under section 11(1) of the Act and accordingly the petitioner had claimed payment of Rs. 1,11,81,932 towards entry tax as input tax credit against its tax liability under the Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that entry tax paid/payable under the Entry Tax Act is admissible as input-tax credit to the dealer under section 11(1) of the Act and accordingly the petitioner had claimed payment of Rs. 1,11,81,932 towards entry tax as input tax credit against its tax liability under the Act. The respondent refused to accept the petitioner's tax payment as towards entry tax because of use of wrong challan form and thereby disallowed the petitioner's claim for input-tax credit under section 11 of the Act holding that the petitioner's payments were towards value added tax and not towards entry tax. Respondent No. 3 accordingly raised total demand as under : Under the Entry Tax Act Rs. 2,39,88,731 Under the GVAT Act Rs. 69,02,142 Total Rs. 3,08,90,873 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. Subsequently, during the pendency of the present petition, the respondents vide a letter addressed to the Vijaya Bank for attachment of bank account of the petitioner being current account No. 7254 for recovery of Rs. 3,08,90,873, attached the said bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, moved the aforesaid civil application seeking the following reliefs : (1) During the pendency of the aforesaid special civil application this honourable court direct respondent No. 4 to withdraw the attachment of the bank account of the appellant and restrain them from taking any further steps for recovery of the demand raised. The appellant therefore requests this honourable court to issue any order, direction not to proceed with coercive recovery and withdraw the bank attachment and restrain the Vijaya Bank from making any payment to the respondent on such terms and conditions which may be deemed fit and proper; (2) Vijaya Bank Ring Road, Surat, be added as respondent No. 5 to the above special civil application as relief is sought against it and petition may be allowed to be amended for that purpose. (3) Any other and further relief just and proper be granted. Mr. (3) Any other and further relief just and proper be granted. Mr. K. H. Kaji, learned advocate for the petitioner, vehemently assailed the impugned order, submitting that the mistake on the part of the petitioner in having paid the entry tax by filling up an incorrect form does not entitle respondent No. 3 to hold that entry tax has not been paid when in fact, the actual tax payable had been paid by the petitioner and had been accepted by the bank as payment of tax under the Entry Tax Act. It was submitted that the petitioner's mistake of paying entry tax in a wrong form cannot be equated with non-payment of entry tax so as to hold the petitioner to be an assessee in default and thrust a tax liability on it. It was submitted that when more than 15 times covering a period of 15 months, the counterfoils of tax-paid challans were deposited by the petitioner with the respondents and again about 14 times over a period of 15 months, form No. 403 was got pre-authenticated by the petitioner from the respondents, no one from the respondents even drew the attention of the petitioner towards its mistake in using incorrect challan forms, the respondents are not justified in coming down so heavily on the petitioner. It was contended that the mere fact of paying tax under a wrong form cannot make the petitioner liable to pay the tax again and that too, with huge interest and penalty. It was contended that the denial of input-tax credit on tax paid by the petitioner although through incorrect challan form is also unwarranted and unjustified. It was urged that the petitioner's mistake of using incorrect challan form was a bona fide one, the due amount of tax has been actually deposited with the State exchequer and there is no shortfall of even a single rupee towards payment of entry tax. Under the circumstances, the respondents were not justified in making the impugned assessment orders saddling the petitioner with the liability to pay entry tax once again along with interest and penalty. It was urged that once the court had issued notice on the petition, the respondents were not justified in behaving in a high-handed manner and attaching the petitioner's bank account. On the other hand, Ms. It was urged that once the court had issued notice on the petition, the respondents were not justified in behaving in a high-handed manner and attaching the petitioner's bank account. On the other hand, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has supported the impugned orders and placed reliance upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The undisputed facts as emerging from the record of the petition are that the petitioner has paid the amount payable by way of entry tax under form No. 207 prescribed under the GVAT Act, indicating in the said form that the payment is towards entry tax. It is not the case of the respondents that the amount deposited under form No. 207 was towards any other tax which the petitioner was liable to pay. The case of the respondents is that entry tax is required to be deposited under form No. 1 as prescribed under the Entry Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. That the petitioner has neither filed form No. 1 which is the return-cum-challan nor paid tax for the financial year 2006-07. The say of the respondent is based upon the fact that it is the case of the respondent that if payment is not made in the manner prescribed for payment of entry tax, the same is not a valid payment and therefore, it is deemed that the petitioner had defaulted in making payment of entry tax. Thus, the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner has paid entry tax along with form No. 207 as prescribed under the GVAT Act and the Rules framed thereunder in respect of the goods imported by it. The only objection is that the entry tax has not been paid in the manner prescribed for making such payment. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that though the entry tax had not been paid along with the prescribed form and had been paid under a wrong form, it was explicitly mentioned in the challan under which the tax was paid that the payment was towards entry tax. A perusal of the challan in form No. 207 indicates that under the said challan, the petitioner had paid only entry tax which is mentioned therein and there is no other entry made against any column in the printed form. A perusal of the challan in form No. 207 indicates that under the said challan, the petitioner had paid only entry tax which is mentioned therein and there is no other entry made against any column in the printed form. Thus, it is apparent that entry tax has been paid under the wrong form on account of a mistake on the part of the petitioner. Such a mistake in making payment under a wrong form, more so when the Department is the same, cannot be equated with nonpayment as has been done in the case of the petitioner. In case the petitioner had made a mistake, the respondents could as well have drawn its attention to the same, so that the same could be rectified at the earliest. A bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner cannot be sought to be taken advantage of by the Revenue merely with a view to extract more money from the petitioner in the form of interest and penalty taking shelter behind a highly-technical objection that the amount payable by way of entry tax, though actually deposited with the Department well within the prescribed time-limit, had been deposited under a wrong form. In case of such bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, when there is no financial loss caused to the Revenue (as the Revenue has enjoyed the benefit of the amount deposited by the petitioner towards entry tax under a wrong form), the officers of the Department are expected to adopt a pragmatic approach, instead of the hyper-technical and adamant approach that has been adopted in the present case, giving rise to unnecessary litigation. In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner having paid the amount payable towards entry tax within the prescribed period of limitation, albeit under a wrong form, the respondents are not justified in raising demand for payment of interest and penalty against the petitioner. Insofar as the objection regarding payment under a wrong form is concerned, the same can be taken care of by issuing suitable directions. The action of the respondents in attaching the bank account for recovery of the entire amount, including penalty and interest during the pendency of the petition also deserves to be deprecated. Insofar as the objection regarding payment under a wrong form is concerned, the same can be taken care of by issuing suitable directions. The action of the respondents in attaching the bank account for recovery of the entire amount, including penalty and interest during the pendency of the petition also deserves to be deprecated. Considering the fact that the petitioner having already deposited the amount in question, may be under a wrong form, and the amount was lying with the Department, the circumstances did not justify resorting to such drastic action. Hence, the respondents are not justified in attaching the bank account of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, both, the petition as well as the civil application succeed, and are, accordingly allowed. The impugned assessment orders dated May 1, 2010, under the Entry Tax Act as well as the GVAT Act made by respondent No. 3 as well as demand raised under both the Acts for payment of tax, interest and penalty are hereby quashed and set aside. As regards the objection that the entry tax is required to be paid in the prescribed form, the ends of justice would be met with by directing the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner and directing the petitioner to re-deposit the same along with the prescribed form. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the amounts paid by the petitioner towards entry tax, on or before July 19, 2010. Upon receipt of such amounts, the petitioner shall forthwith, within 24 hours thereof, redeposit the amount under the form prescribed for payment of entry tax. Considering the fact that the petitioner had paid the amount within the prescribed time-limit and Revenue had enjoyed the benefit of the said amount since then, the respondents shall not be entitled to charge any interest on the ground of late payment of tax. Similarly, the petitioner also shall not be entitled to payment of any interest on the amount paid under wrong challan. The respondents are further directed to forthwith lift the attachment of the petitioner's bank account being Vijaya Bank A/c No. 7254. As orally directed, the aforesaid directions shall be complied with by both the sides without waiting for a copy or certified copy of this judgment. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in the special civil application as well as the civil application with no order as to costs.