9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a separate entity and no longer with M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited - There is no material filed by 1st respondent to show that after the petitioner was released by M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited on 01-10-2013, he was associated in any way with the affairs of the said entity. There is no question of lifting the corporate veil treating that the proprietor of petitioner entity and the assessee M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited as one and the same or as entities which are connected or related - Without any material linking the proprietor of the petitioner with M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited, the bank account of the petitioner cannot be attached by the 1st respondent and the sum of Rs.4,31,210/-, which belon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ganesh Jewellery House Limited at the time of registration of that company at Hyderabad, he had resigned and was released from the said Company on 01-10-2013, but suddenly the petitioner s banker informed the proprietor of the petitioner on 04-07-2018 that the 2nd respondent had issued notice inform VAT 206 dt.04-07-2018 to the petitioner invoking Section 29 of the A.P.VAT Act, 2005 requesting the petitioner to make payment of Rs.4,39,210/- from petitioner s proprietor s account towards tax arrears of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited. 4. It is contended that this action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and cannot be sustained. 5. Petitioner contended that its Banker was informed by the 2nd respondent that it had issued noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is contended that though this fact was informed to the respondents, they illegally withdrew an amount of Rs.4,39,210/- from the petitioner for the dues of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited. The stand of the 1st respondent 8. Counter-affidavit was filed by 1st respondent stating that respondents were not aware that the proprietor of petitioner was an employee of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited and that according to the respondents, the proprietor of the petitioner was found to be registered as concerned person to represent the affairs of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited and that he had failed to intimate about his resignation and his role as mere employee of the said entity. 9. It is stated that this Court should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt were in fact not of the petitioner entity but of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited. This fact has been clearly admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by 1st respondent. 14. The plea of the 1st respondent that the proprietor of the petitioner is the person representing the affairs of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited. Merely on account of the fact that at the time of registration under the VAT Act, the proprietor of the petitioner had also signed along with the Director of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited, it cannot be said that he continues to represent the said entity, particularly when the petitioner has filed release letter dt.01-10-2013 stating that he was released from the very firm M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
