9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct ) who it appears was in arrears of payment of tax and is particularly aggrieved that a demand notice for realization of a sum of Rs. 80,49,741 as per notice dated November 10, 2008 (copy at annexure E) is one not based on any factual or legal premise but in fact one overlooking the payment of taxes made by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 64,27,821; that notwithstanding the petitioner having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the respondent. Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader, has filed statement of objections, in which it is indicated that there is no duplicate payment raised on the petitioner; that while a sum of Rs. 64,27,821 constitutes arrears of sales tax dues for the period from the years 1997-98 to 2000-01 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E is not the amount demanded for the first time but had been demanded even as early as per communication dated April 25, 2007 (copy at annexure R2 to the statement of objections) and as the petitioner had not paid the said interest amount, a further recovery notice had been issued (copy of which is produced as annexure E to the writ petition) for realization of this interest amount; that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm No. 41 dated November 10, 2008 as at annexure E. The petitioner though was very much aware of the demand being towards part of the interest payable on the outstanding arrears, has nevertheless approached this court contending that the petitioner though had paid a sum of Rs. 64,27,821 is nevertheless being asked to pay an higher amount of Rs. 80,49,741 without giving credit to the account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
