TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tstanding tax dues of respondent no.4. Admittedly, the amount paid by the petitioner-Bank (in liquidation) to the IT Department were not belonging to the petitioner- Bank but, it belonged to respondent no.4, who was the depositor of the Bank. The said amounts have been appropriated by the IT Department towards the outstanding tax demand due and payable by respondent no.4. From the above set of facts, it is evident that the petitioner-Bank has already released proportionate amount deposited by respondent no.4 in favour of the IT Department. As per the further affidavit filed by respondent no.1, respondent no.4 is still in arrears of tax demand to the tune of ₹ 43,85,806/- as on 31.03.2013. If that be so, then the same is to be recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank of India cancelled the Licence of the petitioner and therefore, respondent no.3 passed the order dated 16.09.2004 directing liquidation of the petitioner-Bank and appointed a Liquidator. 3. Respondent no.1 addressed letter dated 15.07.2005 to the petitioner, along with Notice of even date u/s.226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, calling upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of ₹ 30.993 Lacs from the Fixed Deposits of the firms of respondent no.4 herein towards total outstanding dues of respondent no.1-Department totalling ₹ 41,98,120/- of respondent no.4. The petitioner replied to the said Notice vide reply dated 20.07.2005. Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued the impugned Notice dated 25.07.2005 to respondent no.2 to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.4 is having business and several movable as well as immovable properties. The respondent no.1 can very well recover the dues by disposing off the properties of respondent no.4. However, no action has been taken by respondent no.1 against respondent no.4 since both respondents no.1 and 4 are hand-in-glove with each other. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the impugned Notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. KM Parikh learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that despite constant pursuance for making the payment of demand raised by the I.T. Department, the petitioner did not co-operate in its recovery proceedings and therefore, respondent no.1 issued the impugned Notice u/s.226(3) to respondent no.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .226(3) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material on record. On 31.08.2006 the following order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court; The case of the petitioner, who is the liquidator, is that after winding up of the petitioner Co-operative Bank, no legal proceedings can be initiated against it, without prior permission of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, including recovery of the outstanding tax. The counsel for the revenue department is directed to take appropriate steps under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. As per the further affidavit filed by respondent no.1, respondent no.4 is still in arrears of tax demand to the tune of ₹ 43,85,806/- as on 31.03.2013. If that be so, then the same is to be recovered from respondent no.4 and not from the petitioner-Bank. Hence, the impugned Notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned Notice dated 25.07.2005 issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that if any tax demand is due and payable by respondent no.4 herein, it shall be open to the IT Department to initiate necessary proceedings for recovering the same from the personal properties of respondent no.4. With the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
