Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

POLYCOATS - A PARTNERSHIP FIRM Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 3

2016 (3) TMI 857 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Recovery of dues - attachment of bank accounts - recovery from third parties - Seeking withdrawal of notices dated 27th March, 2015 as well as dated 5th October, 2015 for freezing the bank accounts and all their facilities and direction to other clients of the petitioner not to pay any amount due to the petitioner but to directly pay the same to the Department on behalf of the petitioner in view of the dues - Petitioner deposited 50% of the amount directed by the Tribunal and 50% not deposited b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he respondent No.4 Bank shall forthwith release the attachment on the bank accounts of the petitioner qua the service tax dues. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount, as may be agreed between the parties upon verification of the amount of interest, with the respondents within a period of two months from today. - Petition disposed of - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1772 of 2016 - Dated:- 16-3-2016 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR HASIT DILIP DAVE, AD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rawal of such notices to all concerned and to the fourth respondent to allow all banking facilities normally. 2. The facts stated briefly are that an Order-in-Original dated 21st March, 2014 came to be passed against the petitioner confirming demand of service tax at ₹ 92,74,918/- with equal penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) together with a stay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en deposited on 7th March, 2015 and the balance amount would be deposited shortly. By the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2015, the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, despite the pendency of the appeal, without intimation to the petitioner, directly issued notices for freezing the bank accounts of the petitioner and all their facilities thereunder and also directed other clients of the petitioner not to pay any amount due to the petitioner but to directly pay the same to the Department on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hasit Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the Statement of returns and payments under the impugned notices (at page 202-A) to point out that the total amount payable by the petitioner is to the tune of ₹ 33,07,279/-. Reference was made to the communication dated 28th October, 2015 addressed by the petitioner to the third respondent, to point out that the petitioner is entitled to collect a total amount of ₹ 55,40,122/- from M/s. Bridge & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

awn and the third respondent may be directed to collect the amount due from M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. towards the dues of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Gaurang Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents has placed on record a statement prepared by the respondents which indicates that the balance amount of service tax payable by the petitioner is ₹ 33,17,623/-. It was pointed out that in addition thereto, the petitioner is also liable to pay interest of ₹ 26,35, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y as well as the late fee on delay in filing the service tax is concerned, the respondents may recover the same from the amount due and payable by M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. It was submitted that the amount due and payable by M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. is to the tune of about ₹ 52 lakhs whereas the amount as computed by the respondents is ₹ 60 lakhs. To the extent of ₹ 52 lakhs, the respondents may recover the same directly from M/s. Bridge & Roof .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r instructions stated that the respondents have no objection if the course of action as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner is adopted. He, however, submitted that liberty may be granted to the respondents to revive the petition in case such amount cannot be recovered from M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. 7. From the facts noted hereinabove, it appears that an amount of ₹ 60,10,884/- is due and payable by the petitioner to the respondents by way of pending service ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version