2014 (9) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Kumar, Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao ORDER (Per LNR,J) The petitioner is a nationalised bank. It approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the demand notice, dated 16.09.1999 issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent requiring it to deposit certain amount. The relevant facts are as under: The 3rd respondent is a company, which was undertaking certain manufacturing activity. It approache....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner to receive the EMIs directly from the 2nd respondent and to credit the same to the loan account. The arrangement is said to be in force. The 1st respondent, an assessing authority under the Income Tax Act found that there are dues of income tax from the 3rd respondent. On noticing that the 3rd respondent is entitled to receive EMIs from the 2nd respondent for plant and machinery, he issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2nd respondent obviously because an item of property belonging to the 3rd respondent is under the control and use of the 2nd respondent. Viewed in isolation, such a course cannot be found fault with. There are two important circumstances, that need to be noted. The first is that the machinery, which the 3rd respondent gave to the 2nd respondent on hire purchase basis, was acquired with the financ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een depositing the EMIs in a nationalised bank and the said amount is earning interest also. The petitioner on the one hand and the 1st respondent on the other hand had put forward their claims before the official liquidator. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that- (a) the amount, that became payable up to this date from the 2nd respondent, together with interest, which are n....