Case Law Details
Vadivel Coco Tech Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that passing of attachment order and debit for amount of arrears inspite of pending appeal is not justified. Accordingly, departmental officer directed to refund the amount.
Facts- It is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition challenging the impugned assessment, he had also filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 03.01.2025. He would further indicate that the reason for approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition was that the respondent had issued notice to the petitioner by demanding to pay the amount determined in the impugned assessment order. The petitioner had also filed an appeal petition on 03.01.2025 and had intimated the same to the respondent with the relevant acknowledgment, however on the very same date, the respondent had issued a notice to the Bank for attaching the Bank Account and the Bank pursuant to the directions issued by the respondent, had also entertained the claim of the respondent and debited the entire amount that had been ascertained under the impugned assessment order. He would submit that this Court had held that the time period for filing an appeal will commence only from the date of order of rectification was passed. In the present case, the order of rectification came to be passed on 29.04.2024 and therefore, the petitioner had time till 28.01.2025 for filing an appeal. Even without waiting for the period of limitation, the respondent had issued the order of attachment and withdrawn the money from petitioner’s Bank account.
Conclusion- Held that when the respondent himself had admitted that the petitioner is eligible for refund, I am of the view that the petitioner is not obligated to make a request for refund, but on the other hand, it is the obligation of the respondent to forthwith refund amount, as stated in the said letter. The respondent had admitted that the order to freeze the Bank Account was made three days prior to the date of filing of the appeal by the tax payer, which had been admitted by the appellate authority, as evidenced in the acknowledgment given by the appellate authority. However, in view that the appeal had been filed by the petitioner against the impugned assessment order in the Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to further adjudicate upon this Writ Petition. It is open to the petitioner to pursue his appeal remedy as invoked by him.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order of the assessment that has been made against the petitioner on 28.08.2024 and the same was subject matter of a rectification application filed by the petitioner which came to be rejected on 29.10.2024.
2. Heard Mr. N. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition challenging the impugned assessment, he had also filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 03.01.2025. He would further indicate that the reason for approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition was that the respondent had issued notice to the petitioner by demanding to pay the amount determined in the impugned assessment order. The petitioner had also filed an appeal petition on 03.01.2025 and had intimated the same to the respondent with the relevant acknowledgment, however on the very same date, the respondent had issued a notice to the Bank for attaching the Bank Account and the Bank pursuant to the directions issued by the respondent, had also entertained the claim of the respondent and debited the entire amount that had been ascertained under the impugned assessment order. He would submit that this Court had held that the time period for filing an appeal will commence only from the date of order of rectification was passed. In the present case, the order of rectification came to be passed on 29.04.2024 and therefore, the petitioner had time till 28.01.2025 for filing an appeal. Even without waiting for the period of limitation, the respondent had issued the order of attachment and withdrawn the money from petitioner’s Bank account.
4. He would further submit that inspite of intimation to the respondent of filing an appeal by the petitioner, the respondent had proceeded to recover the amount from the Bank Account of the He would submit that the petitioner’s appeal was also acknowledged by the appellate authority by mail and the same was received by the petitioner on 03.01.2025 @ 12.36 pm. Only thereafter, the respondent had proceeded to recover the amount. Hence, he would submit that the amount should be remitted back to the Bank Account of the petitioner by the respondent, as the same had been debited from the Bank Account of the petitioner after filing of the appeal.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent on instructions would submit considering that the arrears payable by the petitioner was not paid, the order of attachment was made to the Bank and the Bank Manager marking the lien had proceeded to make the debit for the entire arrears payable. Now that since the appeal had been admitted, the petitioner is entitled for refund and that as and when the petitioner makes a demand for refund, the same would be allowed or granted at once. He had also placed on record, the communication sent by the respondent to him dated 09.01.2025 in ROC.No.PD1.1/2025.
6. I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
7. When the respondent himself had admitted that the petitioner is eligible for refund, I am of the view that the petitioner is not obligated to make a request for refund, but on the other hand, it is the obligation of the respondent to forthwith refund amount, as stated in the said letter. The respondent had admitted that the order to freeze the Bank Account was made three days prior to the date of filing of the appeal by the tax payer, which had been admitted by the appellate authority, as evidenced in the acknowledgment given by the appellate authority. However, in view that the appeal had been filed by the petitioner against the impugned assessment order in the Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to further adjudicate upon this Writ Petition. It is open to the petitioner to pursue his appeal remedy as invoked by him. However, considering the fact that the withdrawal of the amount from the Bank of the petitioner had been made by the respondent, subsequent to the filing of the appeal and that too before expiring of the period of limitation for filing the appeal, there shall be a direction to the respondent to refund the amount that had been debited from the Bank Account of the petitioner, pursuant to the order of attachment made by the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. In fine, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
