9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018, attaching the flat belonging to the Director of the Petitioner and dated 22nd March, 2018 attaching Bank accounts of the Petitioner's sister concern M/s. Patankar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Patankar Hotels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., in RBL Bank, for the dues of the Petitioner. The impugned recovery notice as well as the attachment notices have been issued, consequent to an order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax - Respondent No.3, confirming a Service Tax of demand of Rs. 25.95 lakhs along with interest thereon and penalty of Rs. 26.01 lakhs. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the order dated 14th October, 2011 of Respondent No.3 was received by the Petitioner only on 25th Apri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were of the view, it would be appropriate that Respondent No.4 - Commissioner (Appeals) who was already seized of the Petitioner's appeal, should decide the issue and till then, we were not inclined to interfere. It is on the basis of the above facts that on 5th October, 2018, we were informed that the hearing of the Petitioner's appeal had already been concluded on 3rd October, 2018 by the Commissioner (Appeals). We were further informed by the Counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, that the order on appeal would be passed by Respondent No.4 on or before 11th October, 2018. Therefore, Petition was adjourned to 12th October, 2018 after recording the above facts. 5. This Petition reached hearing yesterday i.e. 23rd October, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere, admittedly, there is a disputed issue of the date on which the order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax Respondent No.3 was received by the Petitioner. It is the date of receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 which will decide the jurisdiction of the impugned recovery and attachment notices. 9. In matters such as this, where the Respondent had attached the bank account of the Petitioner's sister concern for the recovery of the Petitioner's dues, the least that is expected of the Respondent would be to decide the preliminary issue of the date of the receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 as expeditiously as possible. This, as the attachment of bank account would cause prejudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment notice is consequent to the Petitioner not paying its taxes. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to file this Petition.
13. We would have expected the Respondent themselves to withdraw the attachment of bank account of an independent party for recovery of dues payable by the Petitioner. In fact, this is one more reason according to us for the impugned notice being completely without jurisdiction. Therefore, we find no merit in the above submission on the part of the Respondent.
14. Petition disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost.
15. In view of the dismissal of the Petition itself, nothing survives in the Chamber Summons and the same has also been disposed of as infructuous. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
