9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice dated 27.01.2016 issued to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Ahmedabad and the notice dated 28.01.2016 issued to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Ahmedabad, under section 226 (3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "IT Act"), to forthwith pay the amount held by it for or on the account of the petitioner upto the amount of arrears shown viz., Rs. 30,56,76,000/-. 3. While issuing notice in the matter, this court, by an order dated 02.02.2016, had directed that no payment shall be made by the bank to the Department, however, this would not authorize the petitioner to operate the bank accounts. 4. Mr. S. N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a huge sum of more than rupees thirty crores is due and payable by the petitioner towards income tax dues. It was submitted that therefore, the attachment of the bank accounts may be permitted to continue and the petitioner may not be permitted to withdraw any amount from the bank accounts. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pennar Industries Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2009) 3 SCC 177, wherein the court, in the facts of the said case, had directed the appellant therein to deposit a certain amount though it was contended that the appellant was a sick company and, therefore, no direction for payment of any amount could have been given. It was submitted that therefore, the petitioner may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment to continue, prima facie, would be contrary to the provisions thereof as the same would amount to distraint against the properties of the petitioner. Besides, continuance of the attachment would not serve any useful purpose inasmuch as the petitioner would not be able to operate its bank accounts and the revenue would not be able to make any recovery. This court is of the view that the interest of the revenue would best be served by directing the petitioner to file an undertaking to an effect that in case it ultimately does not succeed in the petition, it would deposit an amount equal to the amount standing as on date in the above two bank accounts of the petitioner. However, in the opinion of this court, at this stage, it is not per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
