2020 (1) TMI 1682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted merely on the pretext that the proprietor of the petitioner was once an employee of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited and had signed Form-30 at the time of registration of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited. Contentions of the Petitioner 3. Petitioner contends that though the proprietor of the petitioner was employed for a while with M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited and had signed Form-30 along with Chairman of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited at the time of registration of that company at Hyderabad, he had resigned and was released from the said Company on 01-10-2013, but suddenly the petitioner's banker informed the proprietor of the petitioner on 04-07-2018 that the 2nd respondent had issued notice inf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....requested the respondents to withdraw the notice dt.04-07-2018 issued to the petitioner's Banker, but respondents did not relent. 7. It is also pointed out that M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited is now subject matter of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Main Branch and a moratorium has been declared by the said Tribunal on 12-02-2018 and the proceedings against the said entity have been prohibited. It is contended that though this fact was informed to the respondents, they illegally withdrew an amount of Rs.4,39,210/- from the petitioner for the dues of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited. The stand of the 1st respondent 8. Counter-affidavit was filed by 1st respondent stating ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner dt.05-07-2018 and 13-07-2018. The consideration by the Court 12. Form VAT 206 dt.04-07-2018 was addressed by the 1st respondent to the Banker of the petitioner entity stating that the proprietor of the petitioner entity was due Rs.4,39,210/- , and to make payment of the said amount from petitioner's bank account invoking Section 29 of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005. 13. But this admittedly incorrect since the tax dues being recovered by the 1st respondent were in fact not of the petitioner entity but of M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited. This fact has been clearly admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by 1st respondent. 14. The plea of the 1st respondent that the proprietor of the petitioner is the person representing t....