TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court requires 15% predeposit to challenge tax demand, grants appeal stay with bank account attachment lifted.</h1> <h3>Siemens Ltd Versus State of Gujarat</h3> The court imposed a predeposit condition of 15% of the principal tax demand of CST and State VAT for the petitioner to challenge the attachment of their ... Attachment of petitioner's bank accounts - time limitation - period of limitation for challenging such order is over - HELD THAT:- The issue arising in the present assessment is a repetitive one. In the earlier years, such questions having been decided against the assessee, appeals were filed. Pending such appeals, stay was granted on condition of predeposit of 15% to 20% of the tax demand. The petitioner shall deposit 15% of the principal tax demand of CST as well as State VAT latest by 25.05.2018 - Upon such deposit, the petitioner's appeal will be entertained on merits treating the requirement of predeposit having been satisfied. Pending such appeal, there shall be stay against further recovery arising out of the order of assessment challenged in the appeal. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to attachment of bank accounts by respondents before the statutory period of limitation for filing appeal against assessment order was over.Analysis:The petitioners, registered dealers providing construction and engineering services, challenged the action of the respondents in attaching their bank accounts based on an order of assessment for the financial year 2013-14, which raised CST and State VAT demands. The Assessing Authority passed the order on 30.03.2018, and the petitioners had 60 days from the date of receipt to challenge it. However, before this period elapsed, the respondents initiated coercive recovery, leading to the attachment of the petitioners' bank accounts.In response to the strong measures taken by the respondents, the court issued a short notice for hearing. The respondents argued through the learned AGP that it is not mandatory for authorities to wait for the full period of limitation before initiating recoveries arising from assessments. The court acknowledged this argument but noted that there were no extraordinary reasons for the drastic measure of attaching the bank accounts before the statutory period for filing an appeal had expired. The court observed that the issue in the assessment was repetitive, with similar questions having been decided against the assessee in earlier years, leading to appeals and stay orders with predeposit conditions.The petitioner's counsel informed the court that an appeal had been filed along with an application for stay and waiver of predeposit. Considering the facts of the case, the court imposed a similar condition of predeposit in the present petition, stipulating that the attachment of the bank account would be lifted upon fulfillment of this condition. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the principal tax demand of CST and State VAT by a specified date. Upon such deposit, the appeal would be entertained on merits, with a stay against further recovery pending the appeal. The petitioner was also required to submit an undertaking from the responsible officer of the company confirming compliance with the predeposit requirement.Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, providing specific directions for compliance, including the lifting of the attachment of the petitioner's bank account.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
