2012 (12) TMI 848 - HC - Service Tax

Writ of Certiorari - challenging the notice of attachment of immovable property alleging default in payment of service tax - Held that - The petitioner is not the owner of the property in question, thus is not open for her to challenge the notice of attachment. If the notice has been wrongly issued to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent authority setting out the details of the transaction that has taken place as above. If any action is proposed to be taken as against the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner can defend such action as per law. At this stage, no relief as sought for can be granted. The petitioner, however, is directed to give a reply to the respondent authority explaining the facts as above so as to enable the department to take appropriate action as per law without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Writ petition disposed of in the above terms.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to notice of attachment of immovable property based on alleged default in service tax payment.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed to challenge the notice of attachment of immovable property due to an alleged default in service tax payment by the proprietor of a specific business. The property in question was "CEEBROS SHYAMALA" Block-IV flat No.7D, located in Chennai. The notice of attachment was served on the petitioner, identified as the mother of the individual associated with the alleged default. The petitioner claimed that the property had been transferred to their minor daughter as per legal documents, who subsequently sold it to third parties. The petitioner argued that the Customs Act provisions were not followed in issuing the notice of attachment.

The court noted that the petitioner was not the owner of the property in question as per their own claim, thereby questioning the standing to challenge the notice of attachment. The court advised the petitioner to provide a representation to the respondent authority detailing the transaction history. The court emphasized that if any action was to be taken against the petitioner, they could defend it as per the law. The court refrained from granting the relief sought by the petitioner at that stage, directing them to respond to the authority to enable appropriate action. Importantly, the court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the case's merits.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper representation and legal procedure in addressing issues related to property attachment and tax defaults, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to legal processes in such matters.