2019 (3) TMI 183 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI – Attachment of property – Recovery of amount of Government dues payable by the petitioner – Held that:- This court is of the view that since the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an amount of ₹ 40,00,000/- in cash as well as furnish sufficient bank guarantee to secure the interest of the revenue in the above proceedings, the request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner requires to be accepted – the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. – R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1444 of 2019 Dated:- 21-2-2019 – MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ. For The Petitioner : MR ANAND NAINAWATI (5970) For The Respondents : MR NIRZAR S DESAI (2117) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Rule. Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
for granting stay against further recovery by the Central Excise department. It appears that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the said order and hence, the same could not be complied with and accordingly, by an order dated 9th June, 2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for noncompliance of the pre-deposit order. It is the case of the petitioner that they did not receive copy of the order passed by the Tribunal and it is only when they were delivered a letter dated 14.8.2018 directing them to pay up the dues of Central Excise duty, interest and penalty arising out of the orders-inoriginal, that the petitioner learnt about the passing of the order by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration on 9.10.2018, which is pending before the Tribunal. 3.1 In another matter, the Tribunal by an order dated 12.11.2014, observed that the first appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 13,00,000/- as against the con
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
0,00,000/- in respect of the demands raised under the orders-in-original, which are subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) respectively. 5. Mr. Anand Nainawati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in order to secure the interest of the revenue, the petitioner would deposit ₹ 40,00,000/- (rupees forty lakh) in cash and also submit a bank guarantee of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- (rupees one crore and ten lakh). The learned advocate further submitted that the respondents may be directed not to encash the bank-guarantee for a period of two months in case adverse orders are passed by the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also submitted that the respondents may also be directed to provide quantification of the interest amount calculated by them stating as to how they have arrived at the figure of ₹ 1,50,00,000/-. 6. Mr. Nirzar Desai, however, insisted that the entire amount be deposited in cash in place of a ba
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =