Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 956 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (3) TMI 956 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Recovery of dues said to be payable - Attachment of bank accounts on the ground that another entity has not paid the service tax - Seeking refrainment from taking any coercive recovery proceedings against the company - Engaged in the business of providing erection, commissioning and installations services and provided taxable services to some companies - Department issued a notice for attachment of the bank account of petitioner on the ground that ano .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpany stands raised. - Petition disposed of - W.P.No.6961 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.6178 of 2016 - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For The Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to refrain from taking any coercive recovery proceedings against their company for recovery of the dues said to be payable by M/s.Atchaya Enter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oticed that M/s.Atchaya Enterprises had charged and collected service tax from the recipients of services and had remitted the same to the Service Tax Department. The third respondent issued a show cause notice on 29.02.2012 calling upon M/s.Atchaya Enterprises to show cause as to why service tax should not demanded from them in respect of some of the companies. The said Enterprises sent their reply dated 20.12.2013 and produced challans of service tax payments made by these service recipients. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a notice to the 5threspondent attaching the bank account of the petitioner company. The bank account of the petitioner company was attached on the ground that another entity has not paid the service tax as demanded in the order dated 25.02.2014. 3. Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bank account of another entity cannot be attached for the dues of some other entity. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following jud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tence on the said date as a separate juristic entity and a legal person. It was registered under the Act and started manufacturing activities from 1stApril, 1998. The appellant could not have indulged in clandestine and wrong sales prior to 29thstMarch, 1998. Before the said date, Kuldeep Singh Punn in his individual capacity as a sole proprietor of Freezair India was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of air conditioner and cooling units from the same premises from where the appe .....

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 the promoter's debts are obligation of the promoters and cannot be normally recovered from the other. Principle of independent corporate existence of a registered company is of great significance and cannot be ignored except in the case of statutory mandate or when the corporate veil is required to be pierced for exceptional and good reasons. These are extraordinary situations when the law goes behind the corporate personality and ignores the legal entity of justifiable, sound and adept re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issued without hearing the petitioner is also not denied. The entire case of revenue is based on one Shri Rajesh Jain, being an erstwhile partner of M/s Rangoli Prints, and presently, being a partner of the petitioner firm having committed to discharge liability of M/s Rangoli Prints. As noted hereinbefore, despite categorical statement made in the affidavit in rejoinder denying any undertaking by Shri Rajesh Jain vide letter dated 15thApril, 2003, respondents have failed to produce any such doc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay have. However, in so far as the petitioner firm is concerned, it is not possible to accept the stand of the revenue that liabilities of M/s Rangoli Prints have been taken over by the petitioner firm in absence of any evidence in this regard. Needless to state that the petitioner firm, Shri Rajesh Jain, as an erstwhile partner of M/s Rangoli Prints, and M/s Rangoli Prints are three different entities and the action of the respondent authorities in treating all the three as one and the same, is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version