Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTAttachment of properties - flat belonging to the Director of the Petitioner Company - Bank accounts of the Petitioner's sister concern M/s. Patankar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Patankar Hotels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - recovery of dues of petitioner - date of the receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011. It is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was served with a copy of the order dated 14th October, 2011 in 2011 itself. Therefore, the impugned recovery notices as well as the attachment of bank accounts, were justified as the appeal was not filed within the statutory period of limitation to file the appeal. Held that:- This is a case where, admittedly, there is a disputed issue of the date on which the order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax Respondent No.3 was received by the Petitioner. It is the date of receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 which will decide the jurisdiction of the impugned recovery and attachment notices. In matters such as this, where the Respondent had attached the bank account of the Petitioner's sister concern for the recovery of the Petitioner's dues, the least that is expected of the Respondent would be to decide the preliminary issue of the date of the receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 as expeditiously as possible. This, as the attachment of bank account would cause prejudice to any person, carrying on business as it would cripple its capacity to do business. Orders for attachment of bank account vacated - However, we do not disturb the impugned recovery notices or attachment of the flat belonging to the Petitioner's Director. This, attachment would protect the interest of the Revenue.
|