9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no.2 Bank, perhaps at the behest of the petitioner Company, had sought certain clarifications from the respondent no.1 and which were rendered by the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 26th July, 2013 which is impugned in this writ petition. Petitioner Company in the petition has chosen not to disclose the same and has emphasised on M/s Maharaja Appliances Limited whose dues are sought to be recovered from the petitioner Company being an entirely different legal entity. However the petitioner in the petition, in Ground (xii) has given an inkling of the relationship by pleading that at the time when the French Company took over the shareholding of M/s Maharaja Whiteline Industries Private Limited, it had obtained an undertaking dated 15t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed to be due was a separate and distinct legal entity and the sales tax arrears of which cannot be recovered from the petitioner Company. 5. The grievance of the petitioner Company being against the action of the respondent no.1, it has straightway been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner Company as to how the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court has been invoked. 6. The counsel for the petitioner Company has sought to justify the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by contending that the account of the petitioner Company with the respondent no.2 Bank is at Delhi and thus this Court would have territorial jurisdiction. 7. However on enquiry whether not the said bank account of the petitioner Company is an inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner Company and M/s Maharaja Appliances Limited owing the taxes were common and that the petitioner Company as per Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is liable to pay the sales tax arrears of M/s Maharaja Appliances Limited. 11. It is thus evident, (i) that the petitioner Company has an office at Chennai; and, (ii) that the petitioner Company prior to approaching this Court had represented to the respondent no.1. It is felt that since the petitioner Company has an office at Chennai and is admittedly carrying on business at Chennai, it would not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner Company to contest the matter at Chennai. On the contrary, this Court would not be the forum conveniens for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Maharaja Appliances Limited. In my view, the occasion for the petitioner Company taking such undertaking would have arisen, only on account of the possibility existing therefor. I have rather enquired from the counsel for the petitioner Company of the exact relationship. 14. The counsel for the petitioner Company states that even he is not fully aware of the same. 15. I have further enquired from the counsel for the petitioner Company whether the petitioner Company has taken any action against M/s Maharaja Appliances Limited who are stated to be still in business and having several bank accounts, under the undertaking obtained. 16. The counsel replies in the negative. 17. It thus appears that the matter as to the liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
