Dismissed

Hotel Lakshmi Titanic bar v. The Assistant Commissioner ( St )

Madras HC16 Feb 2021WP(MD)/2068/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the attachment of bank accounts of a hotel proprietor for tax arrears. The petitioner requested installment facilitation and release of attachment. The court rejected the prayer, noting the petitioner collected funds from customers and held a large sum in attachment sufficient to clear the liability.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for installment facility and direction to lift attachment was rejected.

Hotel Lakshmi Titanic bar Vs The Assistant Commissioner… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1741 of 2021

¶7

M/s.Hotel Lakshmi Titanic Bar, Represented by its Proprietor V.S.Palanivel, No.33, Friends Enclave, Maris Avenue, Collector Office Road, Cantonment, Trichy.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palakarai Street Assessment Circle, 21/11, Lawson Road, SBI Officers Colony, Cantonment, Trichy.

¶11

2.The Branch Manager,

¶12

Indian Overseas Bank, Adambakkam Branch, 19, Ground Floor, Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai.

¶13

3.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Plot No.85, First Avenue, India Nagar, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned communications of the first respondent in TIN 33693521103/2017-18/A2, dated 19.01.2021 and 25.01.2021 and Form GST DRC-13 declarations dated 19.01.2021 and 25.01.2021 issued to the second and third respondents herein directing the attachment of the Bank accounts of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the first respondent to raise the attachment made in petitioner's Bank Accounts maintained with the second and third respondent banks and further direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the arrears in 15 equal monthly installments .

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2021

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu

¶19

for Mr.S.Karunakar For R1 : Mr.S.Dayalan Government Advocate For R2 & R3 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for R2 & R3.

¶22

2.The petitioner was running a hotel and a bar attached thereto. The petitioner had committed default in paying the tax under TNVAT Act. The arrears had mounted to more than Rs.28,00,000/-. In the mean while, the first respondent had attached the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner wants this Court to direct the first respondent to raise the said attachment. The petitioner assures this Court that he would clear the arrears in reasonable installments. The said request is strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate.

¶23

3.As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner had already collected the amounts from the customers. Therefore, the question of granting installment facility to the petitioner does not arise at all. In the attached account, a sum of Rs.1,75,80,832.40/-is standing to the petitioner's credit. The petitioner can as well clear the tax liability to the tune of Rs.28,37,160/- and thereafter, the attachment would be automatically raised. I see no ground to grant relief.

¶24

4.The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous is closed.

¶25

Sd/

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True copy/

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS- )

¶28

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2021

¶32

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palakarai Street Assessment Circle, 21/11, Lawson Road, SBI Officers Colony, Cantonment, Trichy.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.N.DILIP KUMAR, Advocate SR-5408[F] dated 16/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.KARUNAKAR, Advocate SR-5486[F] dated 16/02/2021 ) +1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR-5679[F] dated 17/02/2021 )

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.2068 of 2021 16.02.2021

¶36

rmi PK/27.02.2021 : 3P/5C

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

3/3

Hotel Lakshmi Titanic bar v. The Assistant Commissioner ( St )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Lakshmi Titanic bar v. The Assistant Commissioner ( St )

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

Britto Timbers Private Ltd., Vs the State Tax OFFICER-2 (Adjudication)

Palani Kunnakudi Vs the Dist. Revenue Officer

Dr.Raju.S Vs the District Registrar (Administration)

Ganesan Vs the District Collector

M/s.Thangaraaj General Store Vs the Joint Commissioner (St)

M/S.Sri Venkateshwara Paper Boards Vs the Commissioner of Customs