9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding and payable to the petitioner and being willing to pay such amount, the respondents shall directly recover such amount from M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. towards the dues of the petitioner. Upon such amount being recovered, the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2015 as well as the notice dated 5th October, 2015 shall forthwith be withdrawn and the respondent No.4 – Bank shall forthwith release the attachment on the bank accounts of the petitioner qua the service tax dues. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount, as may be agreed between the parties upon verification of the amount of interest, with the respondents within a period of two months from today. - Petition disposed of - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1772 of 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stay application came to be listed, it was suggested that 50% of the amount of ₹ 6 lakhs, that is, ₹ 3 lakhs has already been deposited on 7th March, 2015 and the balance amount would be deposited shortly. By the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2015, the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, despite the pendency of the appeal, without intimation to the petitioner, directly issued notices for freezing the bank accounts of the petitioner and all their facilities thereunder and also directed other clients of the petitioner not to pay any amount due to the petitioner but to directly pay the same to the Department on behalf of the petitioner in view of the dues of ₹ 92,74,918/-. It appears that by 18th April, 2015, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds the dues of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Gaurang Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents has placed on record a statement prepared by the respondents which indicates that the balance amount of service tax payable by the petitioner is ₹ 33,17,623/-. It was pointed out that in addition thereto, the petitioner is also liable to pay interest of ₹ 26,35,361/- and ₹ 57,900/- by way of late fee on delay in filing the service tax return as per rule 7(c) read with section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the petitioner is liable to pay a total amount ₹ 60,10,884/-. 5. Mr. Hasit Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the interest computed by the respondents is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat an amount of ₹ 60,10,884/- is due and payable by the petitioner to the respondents by way of pending service tax liability, interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and late fee on delay in filing service tax. To the extent of interest of ₹ 26,35,361/-, the same still requires verification at the end of the petitioner. As pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that it is an admitted position that M/s. Bridge Roof Co. (India) Ltd. is liable to pay an amount of approximately ₹ 52 lakhs to the petitioner and is ready and willing to pay the same, however, it is in view of the above notices issued by the respondents that such amount is not being paid over to the petitioner. Under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
