Mukesh Mulji Shah, Retired Partner of M\/s. Mukesh Dye Works Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central GST and ors.
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 328 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 993 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-6-2018
Writ Petition No. 12216 of 2017
Central Excise
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
\nMr. Hemant G. Dharmadhikari for the petitioner.
\nMr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the respondents.
\nP.C:
\n1. The petitioner has approached this Court requesting that the attachment levied on his bank account, more particularly described in the prayer in the petition, be raised.
\n2. The petitioner has made a categorical statement on facts and that he was a partner earlier in a partnership firm. Howev<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ontinues to be liable, still, the firm challenged the order of adjudication in appeal. That order in original was set aside by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the demand of tax did not survive. If the demand of tax or the liability or debt in that behalf did not survive, there was no question of imposition of any penalty. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n March 2006. A total amount of Rs. 10,84,614\/has been recovered an there is a balance outstanding of Rs. 11,50,708\/and Rs. 1,00,000\/penalty. Now, this is not an amount or sum disputed by the petitioner at all. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Mukesh Mulji Shah, Retired Partner of M\/s. Mukesh Dye Works Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central GST and ors.Central Excise2018 (7) TMI 328 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 993 (Bom.)BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 5-6-2018Writ Petition No. 12216 of 2017 Central ExciseS.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ. Mr. Hemant G. Dharmadhikari … Continue reading “Mukesh Mulji Shah, Retired Partner of M\/s. Mukesh Dye Works Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central GST and ors.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nHence, the penalty also does not survive.
\n4. As far as the past dues of the department is concerned from two bank accounts, a sum of Rs. 4,74,000\/has already been appropriated or adjusted by the Revenue and the balance sum is of Rs. 7,76,708\/which the petitioner will pay in a period of six months, but on payment, the attachment be raised.
\n5. On all these factual matters and aspects, we do not find that in the affidavit<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe matter pertains to another case which was booked against the firm and thereafter, the demand in pursuance thereof raised by the order in original was set aside by the Tribunal.
\n6. Once that order is set aside and in which it included a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs, we do not see how the Department can pursue that demand by attaching the bank account of the petitioner. More so, the petitioner's retirement from the firm with effect from 27th April 1990 is undisputed. Therefore, the request to the petitioner to pay a sum whi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n