TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that their Bank account was attached pursuant to the order dated 10.08.2015 enclosing Form U for attachment of the balance amount in their account. - petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax other than the amount of 25% already deposited and on production of proof of such payment - Petition disposed of. - W.P.No.29807 of 2015 and M.P.Nos 1 to 3 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - For The Respondents : Mr.S.Manoharan Sundaram, AGP(T) ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) who took notice for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving the revised order, pursuant to the same, the petitioner remitted a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- which is more than the disputed tax and the 1st respondent also released the bank attachment through his notice dated 17.07.2015. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner approached the 1st respondent by stating that no notice was issued before passing the revision order, the petitioner was advised that if aggrieved, the petitioner can file an appeal. Accordingly, aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with a stay petition with a delay of 16 days. The issue in appeal before the 2nd respondent is reversal of ITC for non production of declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss appropriate orders on merits. 4. Admittedly, challenging the assessment order for the year 2011-12, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was returned for rectifying certain mistakes and for production of proof for payment of 25% of disputed tax. Accordingly, the petitioner, complying those defects, re-submitted the papers, but, till date, the appeal has not been taken up for consideration. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to understand by letter dated 11.09.2015 of the 3rd respondent Bank stating that their Bank account was attached pursuant to the order dated 10.08.2015 enclosing Form U for attachment of the balance amount in their account. 5. Since the petitioner's Bank account is attached and in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
