Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 434 (JHR)

Electrosteel Steels Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-03

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority on 8.03.2013 and even petitioner's application for interim relief has not been considered by the Revisional Authority and taking advantage the Assessing Officer has attached the Bank Account of the petitioner against the liability of Rs. 2,73,16,104/-. It is submitted that petitioner is running a business and is not trying to escape from payment of liability but is availing the statutory remedy. It is further submitted that this Court has taken note of the fact in detail in one of the case, W.P.(T) No. 479 of 2013 {Adhunik Alloys & Power Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.}, where the petitioner's Bank Accounts were attached, then this Court set aside the order of attachment. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that it is true that petitioner filed the Revision Petition on 8.03.2013, but no stay was granted by the Revisional Authority and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was within jurisdiction to recover the amount and has not committed any wrong. Learned counsel for the Revenue also wants to file the reply to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for Revenue further submitted that against the liability of more than two crores as per his information about amount of rupees 27 lakhs is only in the Bank Account, which has been attached. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this fact is not correct. According to him, in fact, petitioner's two Bank Account have been attached. 6. Looking to the total liability as well as availability of the fund in the Bank Account, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner shall not withdraw any amount from that Bank Account/Accounts till the petitioner's application for interim relief is decided. This order is passed in the facts of the case and because of the statement made by counsel for the Revenue that against the liability of more than two crores only amount of rupees 27 lakhs are lying in the Bank Account. 7. Furthermore, looking to the facts of the case and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's Unit is running in loss, it will be appropriate to protect the interest of both the parties. 7. Furthermore, looking to the facts of the case and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's Unit is running in loss, it will be appropriate to protect the interest of both the parties. Therefore, petitioner is directed to appear before the Revisional Authority tomorrow i.e., on 4th April, 2013, who may consider the interim prayer petition of the petitioner and if petitioner's prayer is allowed by the Revisional Authority that order be given effect to and in case petitioner's application for interim relief is dismissed, then this order will not survive. 8. We also consider the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel petitioner delivered by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Anab-e- Shahi Wines and Distilleries Private Limited Versus Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad and others passed in Writ Petition No. 5193 of 1995. These judgments also support the view which we have taken. However, facts of this case cannot be looked in isolation to the fact of demand, the availability of amount in petitioner's bank account and running of petitioner's unit in loss. 9. In view of above, relief which can be only granted, this petition is disposed of. However, we are making it clear that the Revisional Authority may not feel influenced by this order and may consider the petitioner's case on merit uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. In case the Revisional Authority will not hear the matter tomorrow he may fix the date according to the convenience to Revisional Authority and Petitioner and till then this order will continue and if the petitioner's petition for interim relief is not decided within a period of 15 days from today, the order under challenge shall stand quashed. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.