TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng any punitive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned Notice. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner herein is the Liquidator of the petitioner appointed by respondent no.3. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Due to financial crisis, the petitioner was not able to survive and suffered liquidity crisis. On 15.09.2004 the Reserve Bank of India cancelled the Licence of the petitioner and therefore, respondent no.3 passed the order dated 16.09.2004 directing liquidation of the petitioner-Bank and appointed a Liquidator. 3. Respondent no.1 addressed letter dated 15.07.2005 to the petitioner, along with Notice of even date u/s.226(3) of the Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passing of the order of liquidation in respect of the petitioner-Bank. In fact, insofar as the alleged income tax dues of respondent no.4 are concerned, at no point of time, any Notice u/s. 226(3) of the I.T. Act was ever issued previously. Hence, the impugned Notice issued by respondent no.1 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 Learned counsel Mr. Parikh submitted that respondent no.4 is having business and several movable as well as immovable properties. The respondent no.1 can very well recover the dues by disposing off the properties of respondent no.4. However, no action has been taken by respondent no.1 against respondent no.4 since both respondents no.1 and 4 are hand-in-glove with each other. Learned counsel,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, respondent no.4 is not liable to pay to the I.T. Department. However, the petitioner-Bank did not make the payment on the ground that respondent no.4 & his group companies have no right on the deposits, as the petitioner-Bank had received the Notice u/s.226(3) and in view of the provisions of Section 226(10), respondent no.4 stood discharged to the extent of the amount shown in the Notice u/s.226(3) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material on record. On 31.08.2006 the following order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court; "The case of the petitioner, who is the liquidator, is that after winding up of t....