Case Law Details
Hotel Sakithyan Vs Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that as an appeal is already filed which is still pending and statutory pre-deposit amount paid by the petitioner, VAT authorities cannot recover further sum from petitioner’s bank account or from any other source till statutory appeal is disposed of on merits.
Facts- Under the impugned proceedings, the first respondent has communicated to the second respondent bank that a sum of Rs.40,96,402/-is due and payable by the petitioner towards arrears of tax and penalty under the TNVAT Act, 2006 and the arrears pertain to the years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.
The petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal as against the assessment order dated 20.01.2021 passed under section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 which is pending on the file of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 30.04.2021. The petitioner has also made the statutory pre-deposit amount before the Appellate Authority and also filed a stay application seeking stay of the assessment order dated 20.01.2021. However, according to the petitioner, despite the pendency of the appeal as well as the stay petition, the first respondent has recovered a sum of Rs.28,49,000/- which was lying to the credit of the petitioner’s bank account maintained with the second respondent bank and the said amount was debited from the petitioner’s bank account on 13.02.2023.
The petitioner apprehends that the penalty amount of Rs.20,48,201/- is likely to be recovered by the first respondent from the amount lying to the credit of the petitioner’s bank account with the second respondent bank. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 13.02.2023 communicated to the second respondent bank.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
