Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts and the direction to remit the demanded tax amounts were justified when the statutory appeals were pending and a bank guarantee was already in force.
Analysis: The writ applicant had already deposited the amounts directed by the first appellate authority and had furnished a bank guarantee, which continued to remain valid. The appeals against the assessment orders were still pending, and the earlier stay had been operating for several years. In these circumstances, the impugned recovery action by attaching the bank accounts and directing the bank to issue demand drafts for the disputed dues was held to be unjustified. The appellate authority was required to proceed with the appeals expeditiously, and coercive recovery was not warranted until their disposal.
Conclusion: The attachment and recovery direction were set aside, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained protection against coercive recovery during pendency of the appeals, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeals within a fixed time.
Ratio Decidendi: When tax demands are under appeal and secured by an operative bank guarantee, coercive recovery by attachment of bank accounts is not justified unless the appellate process has been concluded or the stay protection has lawfully ceased.