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 intervenes to prevent account freeze under Karnataka VAT Act emphasizing communication with bankers</h1> <h3>WHITEFIELD REFRACTORIES (P) LTD., VIJAYALAKSHMI HYDRO POWER (P) LTD., GITA REFRACTORIES PVT. LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) 6. 5, THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA</h3> WHITEFIELD REFRACTORIES (P) LTD., VIJAYALAKSHMI HYDRO POWER (P) LTD., GITA REFRACTORIES PVT. LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ... Issues:Challenge to notice attaching bank accounts under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.Analysis:The petitioners challenged a notice issued by respondent No.1 attaching their bank accounts with the 2nd respondent under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petition sought a direction to the bank not to freeze their accounts, claiming they were not defaulters as named in the notice. The petitioners argued that the defaulter company mentioned in the notice was not related to them. The court noted that no garnishee notice was issued to the petitioners, and any communication from the bankers needed clarification from the petitioners.The court found that a garnishee notice had been issued to the Directors and Partners of the defaulter company, not to the petitioners. The court directed the bankers not to proceed with freezing the petitioners' accounts based on the notice issued by the Department. The petitioners were instructed to clarify any communication with their bankers. The judgment emphasized that the petitioners needed to address the communication with their bankers, and in the circumstances of the case, the court intervened to prevent the freezing of the petitioners' accounts.In conclusion, the writ petitions challenging the notice attaching the petitioners' bank accounts under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, were disposed of. The court's decision was based on the lack of a garnishee notice to the petitioners and the need for clarification regarding any communication from the bankers. The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing the specific circumstances of the case and directed the bankers not to freeze the petitioners' accounts as per the notice issued by the Department.
TaxTMI 