9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of the petitioner Company with the respondent no.2 ING Vysya Bank Limited towards the arrears of sales tax for the year 2006-2007 owed by one M/s Maharaja Appliances Limited. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner Company that though it was earlier known as M/s Maharaja Whiteline Industries Private Limited and upon takeover of shareholding of which by SEB International SAS, France changed its name to the present name but the Company of which the sales tax arrears are claimed 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 enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.1 addressed to the petitioner Company at its Chennai address. The said communication though titled as 'Notice' is in fact a decision on the representation made by the petitioner Company to the respondent no.1 contending that the petitioner Company is not liable for the subject sales tax dues. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) of the respondent no.1 by the said communication has rejected the representation of the petitioner Company, holding, that two of the Directors of 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 ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner 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 15th November, 2011 from M/s Maharaja Appliances Limited that M/s Maharaja Whiteline Industries Private Limited will not be liable for any dues 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said amount out of the bank account of the petitioner Company to the respondent no.1 before the petitioner Company avails of the opportunity in the High Court of Madras or before the appropriate fora in Madras. He seeks time of two weeks to approach the appropriate High Court / fora and protection till then. 21. The aforesaid request of the petitioner Company is found to be reasonable. 22. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 Bank to not remit the sum of Rs. 24,39,330/- or any other amount from the account of the petitioner Company to the respondent no.1 till 9th October, 2015. The same is however subject to the petitioner Company maintaining a minimum balance of Rs. 25 lacs in its account with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
