Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2013 (12) TMI 1445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondents in attaching the petitioner' current account maintained with the second respondent-Bank as well as withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 6,07,682/- from that account and notice dated 25/10/2013 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent-Bank are assailed in this writ petition. A direction is also sought against the second respondent- Bank to deblock petitioner' current account No.64076019778. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is engaged in development of real estate. One of the partners in the petitioner' partnership firm is Sri. Hemansu M.Shah and he is also a partner in M/s. Ambience Projects, which is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (herein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent No.2 and perused the material on record. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the fact that the petitioner firm has no business connection whatsoever with M/s. Ambience Projects, who is due to the Department. Merely because one of the partners of M/s.Ambience Projects Sri. Hemanshu M.Shah is also partner in the petitioner-firm, the petitioner could not have been proceeded against and therefore, the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 6,07,682/- from its current bank account as well as freezing of that account is not in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the action taken by contending that it was the only way by which the dues could have been recovered from petitio....