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 grants relief to petitioner, declares automatic asset attachment ceased under MVAT Act. Decision based on legal provisions.</h1> <h3>Anil Menezes Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.</h3> Anil Menezes Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. - TMI Issues involved: The primary challenge in the petition is to the notice dated 11 April 2022 issued by the respondent-State Tax Officer under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT) to freeze the transactions of shares held by the petitioner and related KYC details. The petitioner, a former director of a company in arrears of revenue, sought relief from the attachment of his assets.Detailed Summary:Issue 1: Impugned Notice and JurisdictionThe notice requested the National Security Depository Ltd. to share the depository accounts and KYC details of the petitioner, invoking Sections 34, 35, and 38 of the MVAT Act. The petitioner contended that the attachment of his DEMAT accounts should be lifted as per the provisions of Section 35(2) of the MVAT Act, which automatically ceases after a year from the date of service of the order. The petitioner sought relief through a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders.Issue 2: Legal ArgumentsThe petitioner argued that the attachment should be lifted as per Section 35(2) of the MVAT Act, while the State Tax Officer did not dispute this provision but kept other powers open for consideration. The Court acknowledged the automatic cessation of attachment after one year as per the law.Issue 3: Court DecisionAfter considering the arguments, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the effect of Section 35(2) of the MVAT Act on the attachment. The Court allowed the petition, declaring that the provisional attachment in regard to mutual fund units and shares of the petitioner ceased to operate by law. The Court clarified that the order only applied to the petitioner's assets and left other contentions and powers under the MVAT Act open for future consideration.ConclusionThe Court granted relief to the petitioner, declaring the automatic cessation of the attachment of his assets under the MVAT Act. The Court's decision was based on the legal provisions and the petitioner's arguments regarding the jurisdiction and effect of the impugned notice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
