9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs from respondent No. 2. When the matter was pending before the Special JMFC (Sales Tax), Bangalore, the petitioner herein appeared as an objector and resisted the recovery proceedings against respondent No. 2. The contention taken by the petitioner in this revision petition is that respondent No. 2 raised a loan from ICICI bank. On being unable to repay the said loan to the bank, the bank issued a demand notice dated November 23, 2002 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein referred to as "the Securitisation Act") and a public notice has been issued about taking over possession of the property o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee cannot be claimed from it by the concerned authorities. Therefore, the provisions of section 10(4)(b)(c) and (d) are very much applicable. Under section 13(3)(b), the sales tax court cannot recover the amount from the transferee of the assets. Since respondent No. 2 approached the competent authority for winding up of the company, the revision petitioner who has taken the land, plant and machinery for lease from the ICICI bank is not liable to pay any amount due under the KSTAct by respondent No. 2. Hence prays for allowing the petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that this petitioner is none other than the son of the managing director of respondent No. 2. The application filed by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can sell the property of the assessee and appropriate the same to the arrears of tax due by it. Therefore, there is no incorrect or illegal findings recorded by the courts below in rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties, the point that arises for consideration and determination is, "whether the order under challenge passed by the courts below is incorrect and illegal? If so, whether it calls for interference?" No doubt respondent No. 2 herein, viz., M/s. Maestro Motors Ltd. was an assessee. Records indicate that the director of the present petitionercompany is Mr. M.N. Madhava Murthy who is related to second respondent-firm. The petitioner has not denied the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Act, is transferred, the transferor and the transferee shall jointly and severally be liable to pay any tax or penalty or any other amount payable in respect of such business and remaining unpaid at the time of transfer, and for the purpose of recovery from the transferee such transferee shall be deemed to be the dealer liable to pay the tax or penalty or other amount under this Act." Considering the relationship of the director of the petitioner-company as well as the managing director of respondent No. 2-company and also that he had given a consent letter to the ICICI bank to purchase the assets, i.e., land and machinery, then he is equally liable. That apart, he being one of the directors of the said firm-respondent No. 2, he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
