2020 (12) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vance by inspecting officials (Enforcement Wing) is illegal. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, in paragraph No.3, the first respondent has admitted that four cheques given by the petitioner on the date of inspection was only towards the payment of tax even though in the impugned demand, they have mentioned that it is towards compounding fees. Since the collection of cheque .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been filed challenging the impugned demand of the first respondent, dated 17.04.2017 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 21,33,005/- towards dishonored cheques totally amounting to ₹ 21,33,005/-, which was issued by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent, on the date of inspection, at their premises, by the Enforcement Wing Officials of the Second respondent. 2. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner has admitted the tax amount and only thereafter, issued the cheques which were dishonored. Hence, according to them, they are entitled for recovery of the dishonored cheques amounting to ₹ 21,33,005/-. Therefore, according to them, the impugned demand is valid and not illegal as contended by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent, in paragraph No.3, the first respondent has admitted that four cheques given by the petitioner on the date of inspection was only towards the payment of tax even though in the impugned demand, they have mentioned that it is towards compounding fees. Since the collection of cheques from the petitioner is admittedly, towards payment of tax, as per the settled law, the said collection by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, is of the considered view that the impugned demand made by the respondent is illegal without there being an assessment order. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned demand, dated 17.04.2017 issued by the first respondent is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to complete the assessment against the petitioner in accordance with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X