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 bank and Demat accounts and the recovery notices could be sustained when the underlying show-cause notices had not been disposed of and no effective opportunity of hearing was shown to have been granted.
Analysis: The impugned attachment and recovery action was founded on show-cause notices issued for recovery of tax, interest, and penalty. The record disclosed no final adjudication on those notices before drastic coercive steps were taken. Since the action visited the petitioners with serious civil consequences, compliance with natural justice and fair play was necessary before attachment could be enforced. The statutory framework relied upon also contemplated liability being fastened only in accordance with law and after giving the concerned person an opportunity to meet the case.
Conclusion: The attachment and related recovery notices could not be sustained at that stage and were liable to be interfered with in favour of the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded to the extent that the coercive attachment and recovery notices were set aside, while the show-cause notices were kept open for lawful disposal after following due process.
Ratio Decidendi: Coercive recovery action carrying serious civil consequences cannot be taken before disposal of the underlying show-cause notice and without compliance with the principles of natural justice.