TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the tax authorities could recover service tax payable by the service provider from monies due from the petitioner to the service provider under the recovery machinery. (ii) Whether the bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 prevented recovery of the service tax demand from the petitioner.
Issue (i): Whether the tax authorities could recover service tax payable by the service provider from monies due from the petitioner to the service provider under the recovery machinery.
Analysis: The recovery provision empowered the Central Excise Officer to require any person holding or owing money to the defaulting service provider to pay, to the credit of the Central Government, so much of that amount as was sufficient to discharge the tax dues. The petitioner had substantial amounts still due to the service provider, and there was no credible material to establish a real dispute regarding that liability. The authority had also taken steps against the service provider, including for non-payment. In these circumstances, the impugned demand was within the statutory recovery mechanism and not without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The recovery from monies due to the service provider was valid and enforceable.
Issue (ii): Whether the bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 prevented recovery of the service tax demand from the petitioner.
Analysis: The liability in question related to service tax on manpower services availed after the petitioner had approached BIFR. The petitioner was continuing its business and had continued to receive the services during the relevant period. A statutory bar under section 22 did not extend to such continuing post-BIFR liabilities. The authorities and precedents relied upon by the petitioner on the facts did not assist, while the principle governing continuing statutory dues was applicable.
Conclusion: The bar under section 22 did not apply to the impugned demand.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the demand was made within the statutory recovery framework and no protection under the sickness regime barred recovery of the post-BIFR tax liability.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 permits recovery of tax dues from a person who owes money to the defaulting assessee, and section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar recovery of continuing statutory liabilities arising after the company has approached BIFR.
TaxTMI 
