9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order. It is also not in dispute that the NCLAT had passed an order on 15.10.2018, which the petitioner claims is akin to a moratorium order passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is for the respondent to consider the petitioner's contention and decide the issue on merits - this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the matter. Admittedly, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the impugned assessment proceedings despite a request having been made by the petitioner for the same in their replies - Having not granted personal hearing to the petitioner in the impugned Assessment proceedings, despite a request having been made by the petitioner in their replies, this Court is of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice for the respondent. 3. In W.P. No.2850 of 2023, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.05.2022 and in W.P. No.2853 of 2023 he has challenged the consequential recovery notice dated 30.11.2022 issued by the respondent on the following grounds :- a) By total non application of mind to the fact that the NCLAT by its order dated 15.10.2018 has passed a moratorium order, which is akin to a moratorium order passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, the impugned Assessment Order has been passed erroneously. The petitioner has also in its replies, dated 21.02.2022 and 15.03.2022 has categorically referred to a moratorium order passed by the NCLAT referred to supra. But however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from exercising the right to set off or lien against any amounts lying with any creditor against any dues whether principal or interest or otherwise against the balance lying in any bank accounts and deposits, whether current or savings or otherwise of the 'IL FS' and its 348 group companies. 5. In particular, she referred to Clause V referred to supra and would submit that the Assessment Proceedings ought not to have been proceeded with by the respondent in view of the order of the NCLAT. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.3 of the aforementioned order of the NCLAT, dated 15.10.2018 and in particular, she referred to paragraph No.3(ii) and would submit tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawing the attention to the replies referred to supra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that a specific request was made by the petitioner for personal hearing which was also not granted as seen from the impugned Assessment Order. 10. She also drew the attention of this Court to Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and would submit that as per the said provisions, necessarily, the respondent ought to have granted personal hearing to the petitioner. 11. Section 75(4)of the TNGST Act, 2017 reads as follows :- 75(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T was not passed under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, but was passed based on an application filed by the Union of India under Section 241 read with Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the order passed by the NCLAT cannot be equated with a moratorium order passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 16. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the moratorium order passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stands on a different footing altogether. He would also submit that even though the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court for the purpose of her submission th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee once a request has been made. Having not granted personal hearing to the petitioner in the impugned Assessment proceedings, despite a request having been made by the petitioner in their replies, this Court is of the considered view that principles of natural justice has been violated. The respondent has also not considered the petitioner's contention that Assessment Proceedings cannot be proceeded with in view of the fact that the NCLAT has passed an order on 15.10.2018, which according to the petitioner is akin to a moratorium order passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 22. Since the aforementioned contentions have not been considered by the respondent in the impugned Assessment Order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
