2026 (2) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-16 is sought to be recovered by attaching the property vested with the petitioner. 2. The property originally belonged to Binny Ltd., which was transferred to the petitioner pursuant to order dated 22.04.2010 in C.P.Nos.66-99 of 2010 under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 in CP.Nos. 66-99 of 2010. 3. Binny Ltd., was de-merged into two other companies namely the petitioner Company namely M/s.S.V.Global Mill Limited and Binny Mills Ltd. As per the sanctioned Scheme of de-merger of the High Court in CP.Nos. 66-99 of 2010 passed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, there were three companies namely:- De-merged Company Resultant Company 1 Resultant Company 2 Binny Limitted M/s.S.V.Global Mill ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to M/s.S.V.Global Mill Limited after the scheme of demerger as agreed by the petitioner. The property under attachment will be released on payment of the demand in arrears of Rs. 11,26,29,248/- plus interest u/s.31(2) 15. It is submitted that the petitioner has stated that for the AY 2011-12 to 2015-16, 15% of the tax demand has been paid. To get the property under attachment to be released the assessee has to pay the full demand in arrears plus interest u/s 31(2)." Thus, it is evident that the property in question is that of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the Respondent has however would draw attention to the representation dated 16.8.2024 of the petitioner with a request for Lifting of Attachment of the propert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n granted subject to the deposit 15% of disputed tax on 01.03.2019. 12. In response, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the stay obtained by the petitioner on 01.03.2019 against the Wealth Tax demand confirmed for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 to 2015-2016 was valid only up to 31.12.2019, in terms of the order dated 01.03.2019. It is therefore submitted that the present writ petition be dismissed. 13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 14. There is no dispute that the property in question stood vested with the petitioner's company pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by this Hon'bl....