TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tempt on the part of the petitioner is to interdict a legal proceedings at the instance of the respondent even at the threshold. The impugned notice dated 10.6.2016 seeks certain clarifications from the petitioner and admittedly, such clarifications relate to the assessment year 2009-10, which is prior to the dissolution/strike off. Therefore, the petitioner should appear before the respondent and clarify all issues, on which, clarifications have been sought and produce documentary evidence called for. - Writ Petition No. 24894 of 2016 & WMP. No. 21264 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman For the Respondent : Mr.Arunkurian Joseph for Mr.T.Ravikumar ORDER Heard Mr.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3.2016. It was further pointed out that the Registrar of Companies issued 30 days' notice of his intention to strike the said company off the register, to the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vide notice dated 24.2.2014. Thereafter, M/s.AGS stood dissolved with effect from 24.3.2014. Hence, the issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 16.3.2016 in the name of a non existent person is invalid and the petitioner requested the respondent to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act. 4. On receipt of the reply, the respondent sent another communication dated 10.6.2016, addressed to the Principal Officer of the petitioner, describing them as the holding company of M/s.AGS. In the communication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued to a non existent company, which has been struck off the register of the Registrar of Companies and that in spite of having intimated the same to the respondent, the respondent issued the impugned notices and in the light of the fact that the petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings as if they are without jurisdiction, the petitioner has not complied with the procedure required to be followed as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.G.K.N. Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. Vs. I.T.O. [(2003) 259 ITR 19]. 7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent threatened to complete the assessment under Section 144 of the Act, if the petitioner fails to immediately comply with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m stay of an assessment order made on a non existent entity. 11. On a perusal of the said order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it is seen that they have observed that normally they would not have entertained a writ petition as against an order of assessment, but prima facie, the impugned notice having been issued to a non existent entity, which has been dissolved and struck off the register of the Registrar of Companies, the petitioner therein having made out a prima facie case, an interim order of stay was granted. 12. In the instant case, the fact of the dissolution/strike off is to be examined by the respondent and the present attempt on the part of the petitioner is to interdict a legal proceedings at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the respondent on the appointed date either in person or through an authorized representative, clarify all the issues and produce necessary documentary evidence. After taking note of the clarifications and perusing the documents and after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner, the respondent shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date, on which, personal hearing is concluded. Till such time, the re-assessment proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and plea of limitation cannot be raised in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
