TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the same; (B) A Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, direction or order may please be issued to the respondent quashing and setting aside the notice/letter dated 5-10-2004 and 19-11-2004 of respondent Nos. 3 and 4; (C) Pending hearing and final disposal, the implementation and enforcement of the said notices dated 5-10-2004 and 19-11-2004 of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 including to take any step or measures in pursuant thereof with respect to the said plot of the petitioner may please be stayed; (D) Ad interim injunction in terms of para 21(C) may please be granted; (E) Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of para 21(C) may please be granted." 2. Mr. K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has withdrawn the challenge raised vide prayer Clause 21(A) and hence the matter is now required to be decided only on the limited ground as to whether letter dated 5th October, 2004 (Annexure-E) and notice of demand dated 19th November, 2004 (Annexure-F) could have been issued by respondent Nos. 4 and 3 respectively. 3. A brief resume of the facts. It appears that one M/s. Divya Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Divya) was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt judgment in the case of Macson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 424 (S.C.) the amount outstanding against Divya was recoverable from the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner was called upon to make the payment within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner wrote to respondent No. 4 on 25th October, 2004 explaining the facts and contending that the petitioner was in no way concerned with outstanding dues of Divya and hence a request was made to close the issue. 6. Mr. K.S. Nanavati submitted that provisions of Section 11 of the Act were not attracted; that the petitioner had not purchased any property from Divya; the decision in case of Macson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was not applicable on the facts of the case. He therefore, urged that the impugned notice of demand and the letter were bad in law and were required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, appearing on behalf of respondents referred to the affidavit-in-reply dated 12th January, 2005 made by respondent No. 2 to contend that the petition was misconceived and was required to be summarily rejected. Inviting attention to paragraph No. 18 of the offer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under Section 11D] the officer empowered by the [Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963)] to levy such duty or require the payment of such sums may deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to the person from whom such sums may be recoverable or due which may be in his hands or under his disposal or control, or may recover the amount by attachment and sale of excisable goods belonging to such person; and if the amount payable is not so recovered he may prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount due from the person liable to pay the same and send it to the Collector of the district in which such person resides or conducts his business and the said Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from the said person the amount specified therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue. [Provided that where the person (hereinafter referred to as predecessor) from whom the duty or any other sums of any kind, as specified in this Section, is recoverable or due, transfers or otherwise disposes of his business or trad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of recovering such duty or other sums recoverable or due from such predecessor. Therefore, first question that will have to be answered is whether Divya is predecessor of the petitioner. The second question that would arise is whether there is any transfer or disposal of business or trade or any change in ownership of the business or trade. The answer to both the questions will have to be in the negative. 12. As noted hereinbefore, Divya can in no circumstance be termed to be a predecessor of the petitioner. Divya has neither transferred or disposed of its business or trade, either wholly or partly, nor has Divya effected any change in the ownership of its business or trade so as to result in the petitioner succeeding Divya in such business or trade. GIDC, as owner of plot in question has let out the plot on the terms and conditions specified in the agreement as licensor entitling the petitioner to use the plot in question without any ownership rights being transferred in favour of the licensee i.e. the petitioner. Divya has not transferred the plot in question. Divya could not have transferred the plot in question, not being the owner thereof and not being in possession. In th....