Attachment of bank A/cs U/s. 226(3) not justified as dept already recovered more than 15% of disputed demand

Sesa Resources Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT & Ors. (Bombay High Court At Goa Bench)

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel and we have also gone through the records. For the reasons stated in the said judgment of this Court in the case of Andrew Communications India (P) Ltd. (supra) and as it is not in dispute that the facts therein are identical to the facts in the present case, we have no reason to take a contrary view in the present petition. Admittedly, 15 per cent of the disputed amount has already been recovered by the respondent-Revenue and such amount is covered by the Office Memorandum dt. 29-2-2016 issued by the CBDT. In such circumstances, we find that the respondents were not justified to pass the impugned attachment notices under section 226(3) of the Act. The claim of the petitioner, at this stage, seeking refund of the amounts attached pursuant to such directions, is not at all justified and cannot be granted in the present petition.