9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner's bank accounts in the said two banks. These orders are passed purportedly in the exercise of section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act' for short). 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacturing activities through its units. The petitioner is a sick industrial company within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' for short) with effect from 30.09.2013. The company's case came to be registered on 27.06.2014 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short). According to the petitioner, such case is even now pending b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CA and contends that pending the proceedings before BIFR, the department could not have carried out coercive recovery of the tax dues. The department contends that the petitioner had also moved BIFR for interim protection, presently there is no information about the pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR and at any day, mere pendency of the proceedings would not prevent the department from carrying out recovery of the tax dues. 8. Since the department is not in a position to controvert the petitioner's contention that the petitioner's case has been registered before the BIFR and that such proceedings are still pending, we have proceeded on such basis. Section 22 of SICA pertains to suspension of legal proceedings and contracts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of a sick company would automatically be suspended and could not be taken without the consent of the Board. It was held that in such a case, gram panchayat could not have recovered the property tax and other amount of dues from the company by initiating coercive proceedings under section 129 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1959, without the consent of the Board. The fact that the impugned demand notices seek to coercively recover the petitioner's pending dues directly from the petitioner's bank account is not possible to be disputed. The fact that no consent of the BIFR was obtained by the department when they carried out such steps is not in dispute. That being the position, we cannot upheld the action of the department. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
