9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections as regards the right of the respondent no.3 to deposit the commercial tax dues. On such application being filed by the petitioner as well as respondent no.3, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore i.e. respondent no.2 herein shall consider and decide both the applications of the petitioner and respondent no.3 respectively within a period of three months without being influenced by its earlier order dated 31/10/2012 which is contained in Annexure P/4 to the writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of. - Writ Petition No. 7509/2013 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2022 - Hon ble Shri Justice Sheel Nagu And Hon ble Shri Justice Maninder S. Bhatti For the Petitioner : Shri Atul Choudhari, Advocate For the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Single Judge granted liberty to the petitioner i.e. the bank as well as the respondent no.3 herein to avail the remedy under section 33 (2) of the VAT Act, 2002. A writ appeal was also filed against this order and the Division Bench reiterated the same view by reserving the liberty to the bank as well as respondent no.3 herein to approach the commercial tax authority by way of an application under section 33 (2) of the VAT Act, 2002. 3. However, thereafter the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax issued the impugned notification dated 4/03/2013 by which the respondent no.3 was directed to deposit the arrears of the statutory dues before 31/03/2013 and upon deposit of the statutory dues the mortgaged property which was also attach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contra, counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that he deposited a sum of Rs 60 lacs out of total consideration of Rs. 1 crore and 30 lacs. The counsel also submits that he was not apprised of the charge over the secured asset and thus, he was unduly saddled with the liability to clear the statutory dues as well. Counsel for the respondents submits at the bar that he is ready to clear entire statutory dues pertaining to commercial tax outstanding as on date. However, the counsel submits that in terms of the order passed in earlier round of litigation dated 19/06/2012 in W.P. No. 12623/2007 respondent no.3 had moved an application under section 33 (2) of the VAT Act, 2002 but the same was turned down by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench. It is also relevant to mention at this juncture that Division Bench also observed that the bank as well as commercial sales tax officer were justified in issuing letters dated 9/07/2007 and 3/08/2007 (these were challenged in the earlier round of litigation) thus, it is a case where the petitioner herein has not challenged either the order passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No. 12623/2007 or the order dated 30/10/2014 passed in writ appeal 865/2008. 9. We have been apprised of by the counsel for the petitioner that bank is not in a position to proceed under the SARFAECI Act on account of interim order of status-quo in the present case. 10. Therefore, since the matter rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
