9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... takes note of the changed development that in terms of the adjudication order dated 19.2.2016 the disputed service tax dues have been crystallised at over ₹ 445 crores. Today, therefore, there is a situation where more than half of the admitted service tax dues (which included the service tax liability of Max Tech taken over by the Petitioner) is yet to be paid and the disputed service tax is yet to be recovered. The Court sees no justification in continuing the interim arrangement put in place by the Court since it will be for the learned Company Judge seized of the winding up petition to examine how, given the financial position of the Petitioner, its remittances should be disbursed to meet the statutory and other priority dues, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Maini, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing counsel Ms Rukhmini Bobde and Ms Aakaksha Nehra, Advocates for ICICI Bank Ltd. Mr Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Bhavishya Sharma, Advocates ORDER CM No.13027/2016 (for change of the name of the Petitioner company as appearing in the cause title) 1. It is stated that pursuant to a certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies on 17th August 2015 the name of the Petitioner company has been changed to SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Limited. 2. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The name of the Petitioner will now be shown as SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Limited . CM No.13026/2016 W.P.(C) 1598/2014 3. CM No. 1302 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he STD informed the Court that the dues were to the extent of ₹ 446 crores. Faced with this situation, where the attachment of the Petitioner s accounts and the garnishee order, if maintained, would in all likelihood lead to the collapse of the Petitioner s business, the Court by the order dated 21st March 2104 put into place an arrangement whereby a certain portion of the receipts into the Petitioner's account with ICICI would go towards settling the dues of the STD. This was under the express understanding that the Petitioner shall proceed with its proposal to sell off its assets which according to the submissions made are valued approximately at ₹ 480 crores. 7. On 28th May 2014, the Court was informed that from a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the Petitioner. 9. It requires to be noticed that since then, pursuant to the SCN issued to the Petitioner, an adjudication order has been passed on 19th February, 2016 against the Petitioner creating a demand of ₹ 445.86 crores for the services rendered by the Petitioner during the period from 1st April 2010 to 31st March, 2013. This is apart from the interest and penalty amounts. Consequently, a major change has taken place since the passing of the previous order of the Court. Apart from the 'admitted' service tax liability of ₹ 130 crores (of which around ₹ 72 crores is said to have been paid till date) the 'disputed' service tax liability has got crystallized by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of the STD and 2/3rd retained in the Petitioner s account. 12. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondents that with the adjudication order dated 19th February, 2016 having been passed creating a demand of over ₹ 445 crores, there is no justification for continuing the interim protection to the Petitioner as far as payment of its service tax dues are concerned. It is further pointed out that the Petitioner should work out its remedies against the adjudication order by going before the Appellate Authority. 13. Mr Balbir Singh, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand urges that the interim protection granted to the Petitioner should continue as without it the entire business of the Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards all of the outstanding liabilities of the Petitioner. 15. At the same time, the Court is of the view that the STD should not be restrained from proceeding in accordance with law to recover whatever dues are owned to it, including the 'admitted' dues of the Petitioner. 16. One issue raised by Mr Balbir Singh concerns the validity of the attachment of the Petitioner s account ordered by the STD by the impugned order dated 6th February, 2013 and the garnishee order dated 22nd August 2013. As already recorded by the Court in its orders dated 21st March and 28th May 2014, the admitted service tax liability of the Petitioner, as reflected in the service tax returns filed by it, was to the extent of ₹ 130 crores. Added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
