9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 721 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery of refund claim - arrears of the petitioner's sister concern, Tvl.Eagle Earth Movers - attachment of bank account - HELD THAT - In the present case, for the liabilities of Tvl.Eagle Earth Movers, bank account of the petitioner was attached and thereafter, the impugned liability of petitioner's sister concern was also realised. This Court already set aside the impugned order of assessment passed against the petitioner's sister concern, quantifying the liability of Rs. 81,53,038/- in respect of the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Now doubt, after the business succession agreement, the petitioner's sister concern continued with the TIN No. till 2015, however, it has not carried any business after the business succession agreement for three assessment years. In this regard, the petitioner's sister concern also filed Nil returns, based on which, assessment was set aside. In view of the order passed by this Court in setting aside the assessment made against the petitioner's sister concern, and the amount realized out of the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, Axis Bank, to an extent of Rs. 81,53,038/-, is liable to be refunded. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass orders, directing the respondent to refund the amount, as prayed for by the petitioner. This Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner, since what the petitioner seeks for is only for refund of the amount appropriated by the respondent-Department from the bank account of the petitioner, in respect of the alleged arrears of the petitioner's sister concern - this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 81,53,038/- to the petitioner s bank account within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the recovery of a sum of Rs. 81,53,038 from the petitioner's bank account towards alleged arrears of tax and penalty of the petitioner's sister concern, the legality of the attachment and appropriation of the amount by the first respondent, and the subsequent request for refund based on the assessment order. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Recovery of amount from petitioner's bank account The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to direct the first respondent to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner's bank account, pertaining to the alleged arrears of the petitioner's sister concern. The petitioner argued that the attachment and recovery were made for the sister concern's arrears, and not for the petitioner's concern. The Court noted the business succession agreement between the petitioner and the sister concern, where the entire business was transferred to the petitioner. The Court set aside the assessment orders against the sister concern for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, and directed the refund of the amount appropriated from the petitioner's bank account. Issue 2: Legal basis for attachment and recovery The respondent-Department contended that despite the business transfer agreement, the petitioner did not immediately surrender the TIN No. of the sister concern, leading to the issuance of show cause notices to the petitioner. The Government Advocate argued that the petitioner, by succeeding the business, is liable for any dues of the sister concern. However, following the Court's decision to set aside the assessment orders against the sister concern, the demand raised against the petitioner was deemed invalid, leading to the request for refund. Issue 3: Court's Decision The Court acknowledged the business succession agreement and the transfer of liabilities to the petitioner. It emphasized that the petitioner's sister concern did not conduct any business after the agreement for three assessment years, filing nil returns. Based on the Court's orders setting aside the assessment against the sister concern, the amount recovered from the petitioner's bank account was deemed refundable. The Court directed the first respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 81,53,038 to the petitioner's bank account within six weeks. Additionally, the Court allowed for re-adjudication of any transactions related to the sister concern's business in the assessment years, considering the agreement between the parties. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, covering the issues involved and the Court's decision on each aspect of the case.
|
