Case Law Details
Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submits that the stay application has also been filed way back in the July, 2020. However, according to Mr. Hemani, no orders have been passed on the stay application. In the meantime, the order came to be passed on 05.10.2020 attaching the current bank account of the writ applicant maintained with the Bank of Baroda, under Section 44 of the VAT Act. Prima facie, it appears that the issue raised has been answered by the eCoordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Automark Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat [2015] 64 Taxmann.com 104 (Gujarat).
Any action to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the petitioner’s application for stay under Section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of.
Therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in attaching the petitioners’ bank accounts under Section 226(3) of the Act as well as subsequent withdrawal of the attached amounts from the bank accounts is without jurisdiction and bad in law. The petitioners have a statutory right to its stay application being heard and disposed of before the Revenue can adopt any coercive proceedings on the basis of the Notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act issued to the assessee. This action on the part of the Assessing Officer, if permitted, would lead Section 220(6) of the Act becoming redundant.
The attachment of the Current Account No. 053211001532 held with the Dena Bank (now merged with the Bank of Baroda) is ordered to be lifted. The writ applicant is permitted to operate the said Bank Account. The appeal preferred by the writ applicant against the assessment order shall be heard and decided on its own merits.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
