9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of money is due or may become due to a dealer then such money can be appropriated towards the discharge of the liability of the dealer. It is not the case of the department that the case falls within sub section (a). What is sought to be relied upon is sub section (b). Sub section (b) provides that any person who holds or may subsequently hold any money for or on account of such dealer then that money can be appropriated towards the discharge of the liability of the dealer. The writ applicant no.3 namely Ruchita Mukesh Kapadia got married to the writ applicant no. 1 Rohan Sunil Shah in 2014. Ruchita appears to be a native resident of Mumbai before her marriage. The department has gone to the extent of attaching her bank account runni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtiles and M/s. M.S. Cotton Co., and obtained refund towards the ITC illegally by getting such amount credited in the different bank accounts opened in the name of the four companies. 4. We take notice of the fact that M/s M.M. Traders and M/s. Standard Textiles are proprietary firms whereas, M/s. Gaurang Traders and M/s. M.S. Cotton Co. are partnership firms. Prima facie, having regard to the materials on record, it appears to be a case of fraud. We are informed that criminal prosecution has also been instituted. Sunil Shah might have indulged in the acts constituting offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. We are informed that the proprietors and the partners of the firms are also sought to be prosecuted. We are informed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein could be said to be holding money for or on account of such dealer. When we talk about a taxable entity, it is the dealer registered under the Act, 2003, who could be said to be a taxable entity. At this stage, we should note of the argument of Mr. Sharma, the learned AGP that although, Sunil Shah might not be a dealer registered under the Act, 2003 yet, having regard to the fraud alleged to have been committed, he can be brought within the ambit of the definition of the term dealer . For the time being let us proceed on the footing that Sunil Sharma was a dealer within the Act, 2003 still the question that remains to be answered is in what manner his family members who are none else than his wife, son, married daughter and daughter-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
