| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | A. K. Menon J., M. S. Sanklecha J |
| SECTION(S): | 220(6) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | stay of demand, strictures |
| COUNSEL: | Atul Jasani, J.D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal |
| DATE: | March 17, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | March 28, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 220(6): Dept directed to redeposit moneys collected illegally by attachment of assessee’s bank account during pendency of stay application. A order passed on a stay application must give reasons for the refusal to stay the demand | |
Thus, any action to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the petitioner’s application for stay under Section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of. Therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in attaching the petitioners’ bank accounts under Section 226(3) of the Act as well as subsequent withdrawal of the attached amounts from the bank accounts is without jurisdiction and bad in law. The petitioners have a statutory right to its stay application being heard and disposed of before the Revenue can adopt any coercive proceedings on the basis of the Notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act issued to the assessee. This action on the part of the Assessing Officer, if permitted, would lead Section 220(6) of the Act becoming redundant. In the above view, the Notice under Section 226(3) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioners’ bankers are quashed and set aside. Further, the Assessing Officer is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.7,59,185 in HDFC Bank, Fort, Mumbai and Rs.34,265/in State Bank of India, Byculla, Mumbai within a period of one week from today
Recent Comments