9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rupees and when the department has also material to suggest that the petitioner had evaded payment of duty worth sizable amounts, the Commissioner was well within his rights to exercise power of provisional attachment under Section 45 of the Act - attachment of bank account justified - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7350 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR Y G THAKORE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR HARDIK VORA, AGP ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged communications dated 3.11.2015 produced at Annexure-A collectively to the petition by which the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank accounts would be harsh and would effectively paralyze the business of the company. The petitioner also points out that the refund of the petitioner for the past years to the tune of ₹ 1.78 Crores (rounded off) is withheld by the department. Thus further securing the possible dues which may be assessed upon completion of the assessments. 5. The respondents have appeared and opposed the petition by filing a reply dated 23.6.2016 in which it is stated that the petitioner was served with a notice for audit assessments for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 and for provisional assessment for the year 2015-16. Notices for re-assessment have also been issued for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. On the basis of the materials available with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce of power or even seriously the justification for exercise of powers except for suggesting that when immovable properties of sizable value are also put under attachment there would thereafter be no further need to attach the bank accounts also. It was in the background of such assertions of the petitioner that the Division Bench by an order dated 6.5.2015 by way of an adinterim relief directed lifting the attachment of all bank accounts of the petitioner. In such order, the Court noted the petitioner's contention that the authorities have already attached the property of the petitioner situated at Mumbai, which is valued at ₹ 13.95 Crores, the Court was primarily influenced by this assertion and made following observations in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk financing facilities. The petitioner has attached various documents concerning the recovery proceedings instituted by such banks for the default by the petitioner to repay the borrowings. Had the petitioner disclosed such facts as the petitioner was duty bound to do, surely the Court would not have granted relief to the petitioner by lifting attachment of the bank accounts. As noted, the Court was primarily influenced by the petitioner's assertion that the property situated at Mumbai is valued at nearly ₹ 13.95 Crores. While so pointing out to the Court the petitioner did not further reveal that against such property the petitioner has obtained cash facility from the bank worth several hundreds of Crores of Rupees and for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
