https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259156 Attachment of a taxpayer's bank account was held unjustified where a statutory appeal or revision was already pending and the period for that remedy had not expired. The Court treated the recovery action as premature and contrary to fair administrative restraint, noting that the assessment for an earlier period had already been set aside and the dispute was before the Commissioner with a stay application. It held that the special recovery power under Section 46 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 should not be used routinely or in a way that defeats an assessee's pending statutory remedy. The attachment order was quashed and the authorities were directed not to frustrate the appellate process. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259156 Attachment of a taxpayer's bank account was held unjustified where a statutory appeal or revision was already pending and the period for that remedy had not expired. The Court treated the recovery action as premature and contrary to fair administrative restraint, noting that the assessment for an earlier period had already been set aside and the dispute was before the Commissioner with a stay application. It held that the special recovery power under Section 46 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 should not be used routinely or in a way that defeats an assessee's pending statutory remedy. The attachment order was quashed and the authorities were directed not to frustrate the appellate process. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259156