2016 (4) TMI 453 - HC - Service Tax

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 Petitioner s account with ICICI Bank, 1/3rd should continue to be credited to the account of the STD and 2/3rd retained in the Petitioner s account. Held that - the Court takes note of the changed development that in terms of the adjudication order dated 19.2.2016 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 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 of the learned Company Judge passing an effective order as regards all of the outstanding liabilities of the Petitioner. Also the STD should not be restrained from proceeding in accordance with law to recover whatever dues are owned to it, including the admitted dues of the Petitioner. Validity of attachment of account - orderd by STD by the impugned order dated 6.2.2013 and the garnishee order dated 22.8.2013 - Held that - As already recorded by the Court in its orders dated 21.3.2014 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 STD by its order dated 6th February, 2013 or the garnishee order dated 22nd August 2013. Consequently, the Court vacates the interim arrangement put in place by the orders dated 21.3.2014, 28.5.2014 and 22.1.2016. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of petitioner company name
2. Clarification/modification of previous order
3. Service tax liability and attachment of bank account
4. Interpretation of court orders regarding payment of service tax dues
5. Modification of order regarding remittance of funds to STD
6. Validity of attachment of petitioner's account by STD

Change of Petitioner Company Name:
The court allowed the application for changing the name of the petitioner company to "SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Limited" based on a certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies.

Clarification/Modification of Previous Order:
The petitioner filed an application seeking clarification/modification of a previous order. The background of the case involved the attachment of the petitioner's bank account by the Service Tax Department (STD) due to non-payment of service tax dues. The court had directed a portion of receipts to settle the dues, considering the petitioner's proposal to sell assets. Subsequently, an adjudication order was passed against the petitioner, creating a demand for service tax dues.

Service Tax Liability and Attachment of Bank Account:
The court noted the significant service tax liability of the petitioner, including disputed amounts. The petitioner sought interim protection to continue business operations, while the STD emphasized the need to recover dues. The court observed the crystallization of disputed service tax dues and the pending winding-up petition against the petitioner.

Interpretation of Court Orders Regarding Payment of Service Tax Dues:
The court addressed the interpretation of its previous orders regarding the remittance of funds to the STD. The petitioner requested clarity on the arrangement, while the respondents argued against continuing interim protection due to the substantial service tax liability.

Modification of Order Regarding Remittance of Funds to STD:
The petitioner sought modification of an order related to remitting funds to the STD, emphasizing the need to continue the existing arrangement for crediting a portion of remittances. The court considered the changed circumstances and the pending winding-up petition in deciding to vacate the interim arrangement.

Validity of Attachment of Petitioner's Account by STD:
The court discussed the validity of the attachment of the petitioner's account by the STD, considering the admitted service tax liability and payments made by the petitioner. It was concluded that there was no reason to vacate the attachment orders.

In the final decision, the court vacated the interim arrangement, allowing parties to pursue remedies as per law. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of, canceling the next hearing date.