Disposed

N. K. Bhupeshbabu v. the Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014WP/7979/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged bank attachment orders under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme. Petitioner filed affidavit undertaking to pay balance dues by 31.12.2014 from property sale proceeds. Court accepted undertaking and disposed Writ Petition with ad interim order存续 till that date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's undertaking accepted; ad interim order continued till 31.12.2014; breach would invite contempt proceedings.

N. K. Bhupeshbabu Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

10.wp7979.13.doc

sbw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7979 OF 2013

¶6

N. K. Bhupeshbabu - Versus -

¶7

The Union of India & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Prakash Shah with Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶12

A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

DATE :- 15^th DECEMBER, 2014

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

The prayer in the Writ Petition is to call for the records pertaining to Annexures-A to C, C-1 and C-2, by which the 3^rd Respondent has directed the banks to attach/freeze the bank accounts of the Petitioner.

¶16

2] The debtors and creditors have been directed to make the payment to the Government Treasury. On such Writ Petition being filed, the Petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- by 13^th September, 2013 and protected the Petitioner against an attachment of the bank

¶17

1/3

¶18

2 10.wp7979.13.doc

¶19

accounts. Further, the direction to the Petitioners debtors who were informed not to pay the dues to the Petitioner but deposit in the Government Treasury also came to be stayed. In terms of the order passed by the Division Bench, a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- has been paid, the ad interim order has been continuing since then. The Writ Petition was placed before us on 11^th November, 2014 on which date we inquired as to when the Petitioner will pay the admitted dues. This was because of the apprehension of the Respondent that the Petitioner will take advantage of the pendency of the Writ Petition and not remit the admitted sum. Now an affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner in which he has given an undertaking to this Court that he would pay the amount/deposit by 31^st December, 2014. He has stated that out of the service tax liability of Rs.1,68,34,681/- admitted in the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme Declaration dated 12^th August, 2013, Rs.84,18,101/- has been deposited. Now, he has executed an agreement for sale of an immovable property and is likely to receive the consideration thereunder. He would

¶20

pay the balance service tax dues from this sum received. In such circumstances, we accept the undertakings given by the Petitioner.

¶21

3] In the event, the amount as undertaken is not deposited or paid, it would be open for the Respondents to initiate such measures as are

¶22

2/3

¶23

3 10.wp7979.13.doc

¶24

permissible in law. They can coerce the Petitioner to pay the balance dues thereafter. Equally, breach of the undertakings given to this Court would visit the Petitioner with other consequences in law including initiation of proceedings under the Contempt Courts Act, 1971. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The ad interim order shall continue only till 31^st December, 2014. This order is passed in presence of the Petitioner.

¶25

(A. A. SAYED, J.) ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶26

wadhwa

¶27

3/3

N. K. Bhupeshbabu v. the Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. K. Bhupeshbabu v. the Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commission Er of Income TAX-1 Mumbai Vs the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax -v, Vs Prima Paper and Engg.Pvt.Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, Mumbai Vs M/S Radhe Krishna Fiscal Pvt. Ltd.

Cummins India Ltd. Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Manish Vorani of Mumbai Inhabitant Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Advocates Association of Western India and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.