2016 (3) TMI 857 - HC - Service Tax

Recovery of dues - attachment of bank accounts - recovery from third parties - Seeking withdrawal of notices dated 27th March, 2015 as well as dated 5th October, 2015 for freezing the bank accounts and all their facilities and direction to other clients of the petitioner not to pay any amount due to the petitioner but to directly pay the same to the Department on behalf of the petitioner in view of the dues - Petitioner deposited 50% of the amount directed by the Tribunal and 50% not deposited because of financial crisis - Held that - Subject to M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. agreeing that an amount of ₹ 52 lakhs is outstanding and payable to the petitioner and being willing to pay such amount, the respondents shall directly recover such amount from M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. towards the dues of the petitioner. Upon such amount being recovered, the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2015 as well as the notice dated 5th October, 2015 shall forthwith be withdrawn and the respondent No.4 Bank shall forthwith release the attachment on the bank accounts of the petitioner qua the service tax dues. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount, as may be agreed between the parties upon verification of the amount of interest, with the respondents within a period of two months from today. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax.
2. Request for withdrawal of recovery notices and communication to concerned parties.
3. Dispute over the total amount payable by the petitioner.
4. Liability to pay interest and late fees.
5. Proposal for recovery of dues from a third party.
6. Verification of interest amount and payment timeline.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged two recovery notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax in 2015. The notices froze the petitioner's bank accounts and directed clients to pay dues directly to the Department. The petitioner had paid the directed pre-deposit amount but faced financial difficulties.

Issue 2:
The petitioner sought withdrawal of recovery notices and communication to concerned parties. The petitioner requested the Assistant Commissioner to withdraw the notices after fulfilling the Tribunal's pre-deposit requirement, but no action was taken, leading to the filing of the present petition.

Issue 3:
Dispute arose over the total amount payable by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the outstanding amount was less than what the respondents claimed. The petitioner highlighted specific amounts owed by a third party, suggesting that the recovery notices should be withdrawn based on the discrepancy.

Issue 4:
The respondents claimed the petitioner owed a total of Rs. 60,10,884, including service tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner contested the interest amount, agreeing to pay the principal service tax and late fees. The respondents agreed to recover a portion from the third party and allowed time for the petitioner to pay the balance.

Issue 5:
A proposal was made for the recovery of dues from M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., with the respondents agreeing to recover Rs. 52 lakhs directly from them. The remaining balance would be paid by the petitioner within two months, subject to verification of interest payable.

Issue 6:
The court directed the recovery of Rs. 52 lakhs from the third party towards the petitioner's dues. Upon recovery, the recovery notices were to be withdrawn, and the petitioner was given two months to pay the verified interest amount. The parties were reserved the liberty to revive the petition if needed.