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

2016 (4) TMI 453 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 453 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Seeking clarification/modification of order dated 22.1.2016 - ICICI bank is construing the order to mean that it will not allow any withdrawal from the account till such time the entire sum of ₹ 10,93,45,803/- is not paid from the said account to the STD - Petitioner wants clarification that the arrangement put in place by the order dated 28.5.2014 of this Court will continue means that of the remittances received in the Petitionerís account with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itioner) is yet to be paid and the disputed service tax is yet to be recovered. The Court sees no justification in continuing the interim arrangement put in place by the Court since it will be for the learned Company Judge seized of the winding up petition to examine how, given the financial position of the Petitioner, its remittances should be disbursed to meet the statutory and other priority dues, as well as the dues of its lenders and creditors. These proceedings should not come in the way o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

14 and 28.5.2014, the admitted service tax liability of the Petitioner, as reflected in the service tax returns filed by it, was to the extent of ₹ 130 crores. Added to this is the admitted service tax liability of ₹ 11 crores of Max Tech which has to be discharged by the Petitioner. In the past two years, the Petitioner has managed to pay only around ₹ 72 crores towards this admitted sum. Consequently, the Court does not see any reason to vacate the attachment ordered by the S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de and Ms Aakaksha Nehra, Advocates for ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Bhavishya Sharma, Advocates ORDER CM No.13027/2016 (for change of the name of the Petitioner company as appearing in the cause title) 1. It is stated that pursuant to a certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies on 17th August 2015 the name of the Petitioner company has been changed to SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Limited. 2. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The name .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 6th February 2013 and 22nd August 2013 issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) in relation to non-payment of the service tax dues by the Petitioner. By the order dated 22nd August, 2013 issued under Section 87 (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 it was ordered that the payments owed to the Petitioner by the ONGC should be directly credited to the Government exchequer. 5. On 21st March 2014, this Court was informed that a consortium of the Petitioner s secured credi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Court that the total dues were ₹ 270 crores out of which ₹ 132 crores have already been paid. However, the STD informed the Court that the dues were to the extent of ₹ 446 crores. Faced with this situation, where the attachment of the Petitioner s accounts and the garnishee order, if maintained, would in all likelihood lead to the collapse of the Petitioner s business, the Court by the order dated 21st March 2104 put into place an arrangement whereby a certain portion of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the STD. The Court noted that the outstanding amount of service tax was ₹ 388 crores out of which, admittedly, ₹ 132 crores had been paid by the Petitioner, leaving a balance of ₹ 256 crores. This when further reduced by ₹ 8 crores paid to the STD worked out to ₹ 248 crores. Of this, the Petitioner admitted to a liability of ₹ 130 crores and disputed the balance ₹ 118 crores. 8. The Court was on 28th May 2014 informed by learned counsel for the Petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat 1/3rd of each remittance received in to the said account is made over directly to the Service Tax Department within one week of its receipt. The Court then noted that as regard the disputed sum of service tax liability i.e. ₹ 118 crores, the Department shall proceed as quickly as possible to compile relevant materials and initiate proceedings by issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the Petitioner. 9. It requires to be noticed that since then, pursuant to the SCN issued to the Petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s is said to have been paid till date) the 'disputed' service tax liability has got crystallized by means of the above adjudication order dated 19th February 2016. 10. The Petitioner approached this Court with an application being CM No.14272/2015 in which it is stated that it had taken over the service tax liability of M/s Max Tech Oil & Gas Services P. Ltd. ('Max Tech') by a Board Resolution dated 6th June, 2015. The said service tax liability of Max Tech was to the tune of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a modification of the above order by pointing out that the ICICI bank is construing the above order to mean that it will not allow any withdrawal from the account till such time the entire sum of ₹ 10,93,45,803/- is not paid from the said account to the STD. The Petitioner wants this Court to clarify that the arrangement put in place by the order dated 28th May, 2014 of this Court will continue. In other words, it is prayed that of the remittan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is further pointed out that the Petitioner should work out its remedies against the adjudication order by going before the Appellate Authority. 13. Mr Balbir Singh, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand urges that the interim protection granted to the Petitioner should continue as without it the entire business of the Petitioner would come to a standstill. He states that the Petitioner will come up with an arrangement whereby the admitted dues of the STD can be met even .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dication order dated 19th February, 2016 the disputed service tax dues have been crystallised at over ₹ 445 crores. Today, therefore, there is a situation where more than half of the admitted service tax dues (which included the service tax liability of Max Tech taken over by the Petitioner) is yet to be paid and the disputed service tax is yet to be recovered. The Court sees no justification in continuing the interim arrangement put in place by the Court since it will be for the learned C .....

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