Disposed

Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2010CWP/8905/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order requiring registration info and NOC for sale of property against company tax dues. Court directed appellate authority to decide pending stay application within three months and prohibited alienation.

What did the court decide?

Stay application to be decided by Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) within three months; petitioner restrained from alienating property; petition disposed of without deciding substanti

Mangal Sain Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 8905 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 1.9.2010

Sh. Mangal Sain

....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

¶13

This petition seeks quashing of order, Annexure P-3, requiring the Tehsildar to give information if any registration of sale deed is done by the petitioner and further asking that in case of registration of sale deed, NOC be obtained from the Excise and Taxation Department as the Department had dues against partners of M/s Mangla Solvex Ltd.

¶14

Case of the petitioner is that since no recovery was pending against the petitioner, his personal property could not be attached against the dues of the company of which he was the Managing Director. It is pointed out that against the assessment made in the matter of M/s Mangla Solvex Ltd., an appeal has been filed and stay of recovery has been sought on which no decision was being taken. In such circumstances, the personal property of the petitioner could not

¶15

CWP No. 8905 of 2010

¶16

-2-

¶17

ordered to be attached by assuming him to be partner while he was infact Managing Director of a company and therefore, not personally liable. There is neither any crystalized liability nor there is any personal liability.

¶18

Stand of the department is that attachment was on the letter of the petitioner himself and it was necessary to safeguard the demand arising out of the assessment order against which no stay was granted.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that stay application may be decided by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will not alienate property in question. The petitioner will also abide by such order as may be passed on the stay application. In view of this direction, point raised in the petition need not be gone into at this stage.

¶20

The petition is disposed of.

¶21

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶22

September 1, 2010 gbs

¶23

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Ce Commissioinerate, Chd Vs M/S Saraswati Rubber Works (P) Ltd.

M/S Vishnu Fruit Traders Vs State of Punjab & Others

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Haryana Warehousing Corp.

Santokh Singh Dhillon Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Cit Rohtak Vs Tek Singh Saini

M/S Ram Gopal Murli Dhar Juntra Vs State of Haryana