9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... torage Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Panagarh, to the extent of the tax liability of Panagarh asindicated in the said notice. The Officer-in-Charge, CONFED was warned that in case of default in payment to the Tax Recovery Officer, in terms of the said impugned notices, CONFED would be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the sum due from CONFED to Panagarh or the amount of tax liability of Panagarh, whichever was less. The Officer-in-Charge, CONFED was further warned that if any liability to Panagarh was discharged after receipt of the said notice, the Officer-in-Charge would personally be liable to the Tax Recovery Officer, to the extent of the sum discharged or the tax liability of Panagarh, whichever was less. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax liability of Rs. 59,65,344 of Panagarh for the assessment year 2005-06 and requesting CONFED to pay all amounts due and payable by CONFED to Panagarh to the tune of Rs. 59,65,344 to the Tax Recovery Officer. 8. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid notice, CONFED paid a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to Panagarh. In the circumstances, a notice No.TRO-2/DGP/2011-12/3 was issued demanding from CONFED Rs.15 lakhs paid by CONFED to the defaulting assessee, Panagarh. 9. A certificate was also issued, certifying that a sum of Rs.15 lakhs had become due from CONFED to the Tax Recovery Officer. CONFED was called upon to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.15 lakhs within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. CONFED was threatened with rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be stayed, just because the notice of demand mentioned an amount higher than that which could lawfully have been recovered from Panagarh or its debtors. An error in the figure, in a notice of demand does not vitiate the demand. 13. The certificate in the instant case, is for Rs.15 lakhs. In my view, section 225(2) does not, in any case, stay recovery of the entire amount specified in the certificate but only that part of the amount reduced in appeal. 14. Thus, Rs.59 lakhs could not have been recovered, the arrear tax liability having been reduced to Rs.15 lakhs. The aforesaid sum of Rs.15 lakhs could be recovered. The certificate is for Rs.15 lakhs. There are no grounds for interference with the recovery. 15. Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
