Judgment :- 1. Since all these writ petitions are filled by the same petitioner and since the issue in these writ petitions is also co-related, these writ petitions are decided by this common order. 2. The Petitioner in all these writ petitions is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Registration Act, 1956, having its Registered office at Coimbatore and the petitioner company is also assessed to income tax on the file of the first respondent. 3. As per the averments in the affidavit filed in these writ petitions, the shareholders of the petitioner company are as per details below: Besides, according to the petitioner, while the investment of O.R.E. Holdings Limited (“O.R.E.” for short) was at a cash premium of Rs.75 crores, the 6th respondent was allotted shares in consideration for transfer of certain of its shareholding in two companies known as cheran properties Limited and Vasantha Mills Ltd. To the Petitioner company which owned significant assets in the nature of immovable properties: O.R.E. entered into a joint venture agreement dated 30.01.2004: pursuant to the execution of that joint venture agreement, the capital of the petitioner company raised to Rs.27,58,70,900/- divided into 27,58,709 shares of the face value of Rs. 100/-each, O.R.E entered into joint venture agreement for the purpose of developing and selling hotels and I.T. parks which was in line with the object of the petitioner company: however owing to various acts of oppression, mismanagement, mis-appropriation and breach of contract committed by the 7th respondent, the petitioner did not commence or carry out any activity: this is evident from the fact that other than the bank interest earned on the capital mobilised by the petitioner, there was no legitimate income or expense incurred by the petitioner: thus , for the assessment year 2004-2005, the income tax assessment of the petitioner ought to have been completed without imposing any tax liability but the first respondent has passed an order dated 07.01.2005, invoking the provision under Section 2818 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act for short”) and Provisionally attached a sum of Rs.25 crores lying to the account of the petitioner in F.D.A/c. No.0120005125500 maintaining with the fifth respondent-State Bank of India. 4. 4. Further, according to the petitioner, by order dated 25.06.2005, the said attachment was also extended: subsequently, by the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I (1) Coimbatore, dated 23.09.2005, State Bank of India, Chennai10, was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 25,56,88,256/- From the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner and so also, by another order of the same date passed by the same authority, state Bank of India, Erode Main Branch, Erode, was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 6,86,42,963/- from the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner. 5. 25,56,88,256/- From the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner and so also, by another order of the same date passed by the same authority, state Bank of India, Erode Main Branch, Erode, was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 6,86,42,963/- from the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner. 5. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the aforesaid attachment is towards the tax liability of the 6th respondent, viz., CG Holdings Private Limited and this attachment is under Section 226(3) of the Act: but, since the petitioner company had not held that sum of the 6th respondent and also that sum is not due from the petitioner company to the 6th respondent that attachment is without any authority and it is contrary to the provisions: further the diversion of the petitioner’s funds came to light when the 5th respondent, viz., State Bank of India, filed its pleadings in the company Petition No. 76 of 2005 filed by O.R.E. before the Company Law Board, Chennai : besides even these attachments are on the erroneous assumption that the 6th respondent, viz., CG Holdings Private Limited is the holding company of the petitioner; but, even to the knowledge of the 2nd respondent, the 6th respondents, Viz., CG Holdings Private Limited had only 45% of the shares of the petitioner company and without any material the official respondent have assumed that the 6th respondent is the holding company of the petitioner: further, by order dated 13.10.2005, the attachment with reference to Rs.57 lakhs was directed to be continued since this attachment is towards the tax liability of the 6th respondent the petitioner had brought to the notice of respondents 2 and 3, the improper appropriation of the petitioners funds towards the tax liability of the 6th respondent and called upon them to refund the said funds; however, the same was not refunded; hence, this was brought to the notice of the Ministry of Finance Government of India by letter dated 27.03.2006 however the Ministry of Finance , in its memorandum dated 23.05.2006, has referred the matter to the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes: but no further action was initiated: consequently, these writ petitions are filed. 6. W.P. Nos. 6. W.P. Nos. 32444 and 32446 of 2006 are filed seeking to quash the orders dated 23.09.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I, Coimbatore, the second respondent in both the writ petitions. 7. As far as W.P. No. 32444 of 2006 is concerned, by the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2005, the Additional Commissioner of income Tax, Range-I Coimbatore, had directed state Bank of India, Chennai-10, the fifth respondent, to remit a sum of Rs.25,56,88,256/- from the Fixed Deposit a/c of the Petitioner. 8. As far as W.P. No.32446 of 2006 is concerned, by the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2005, the Additional Commissioner of income Tax, Range-I, Coimbatore had directed state Bank of India, Erode Main Branch, Erode, the Fifth respondent, to remit a sum of Rs. 6,86,42,963/- from the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner. 9. The aforesaid payments are towards tax liability of CG Holdings Private Limited, the 6th respondent, in these writ petitions. 10. At paragraph no.8 the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 in these writ petitions, it has been stated as follows: “I submit that the said C.G. Holdings Private Limited, the 6th Respondent herein, filed an appeal against the order dated 20.09.2005 raising demand of Rs.32,43,31,219/-before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) . The Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) allowed the said appeal by order dated 04.09.2006. In such circumstances, the sum collected of Rs. 32,43,31,219/- is liable to be refunded.” 11. As per the above extracted portion, in the appeal filed by CG Holdings Private Limited, the 6th respondent herein, by order dated 04.09.2006, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), had allowed the appeal. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 32,43,31,219/-paid from the Fixed Deposit of the petitioner for the tax liability of M/s. CG Holdings private Limited has to be refunded. 12. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority himself, as on date, nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions. Accordingly, W.P. Nos. 32444 and 32446 of 2006 are closed. No costs. In view of the final order passed in these writ petitioners, there is no need to pass any separate orders in the connected Miscellaneous Petitions. Hence, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 13. Accordingly, W.P. Nos. 32444 and 32446 of 2006 are closed. No costs. In view of the final order passed in these writ petitioners, there is no need to pass any separate orders in the connected Miscellaneous Petitions. Hence, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 13. As far as W.P. No. 32447 of 2006 is concerned, it is filled seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to produce all the records pertaining to the assessment of respondents 6 and 7 for the assessment year 2004-2005 and 20052006. As far as 6th respondent is one of the shareholders of the petitioner company. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also reveals that no reason has been stated therein for seeking this relief. Apart from this, what is the locus standi of the petitioner to seek this relief, is also not made out. Consequently, W.P. No.32447 of 2006 cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed. No. costs. 14. Coming to W.P. No. 32448 of 2006, it is filled for quashing the order dated 13.10.2005. By the said order, since a sum of Rs.57 Lakhs is due for payment of tax, the attachment with regard to Rs. 57 lakhs was directed to remain in force. 15. But, at paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 32448 of 2006 which has been signed on 24.09.2006, it has been stated as follows: “11. . . . . I am state that the attachment proceedings in No. AACCC5150C/C0.I(1) /CBE dated 13.10.2005 attaching the balance sum of Rs.57 lakhs lying the account No.0120005125500 in the SBI, Erode Branch has been lifted by the Proceedings of the 1st respondent in Ref. No. AACCC5150C dated 24.04.2006 …..” 16 In view of the above stand taken by the first respondent, the issue in this writ petition has become in fructuous. Hence, W.P. No. 32448 of 2006 is closed as in fructuous. No costs. 17. Coming to W.P. No. 32449 of 2006, the prayer sought therein is vague. As per the prayer, a writ of mandamus is sought to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to produce all the records pertaining to the assessment order of the petitioner before this court for two assessment years viz., 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. No costs. 17. Coming to W.P. No. 32449 of 2006, the prayer sought therein is vague. As per the prayer, a writ of mandamus is sought to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to produce all the records pertaining to the assessment order of the petitioner before this court for two assessment years viz., 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Without even specifiying the records, this request of the petitioner cannot be entertained, though the words used in the prayer is “ all the records”. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 18. As far as W.P. No. 32445 of 2006 is concerned, it is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to refund a sum of Rs. 25,56,88,256/- 19. Coming to W.P. No. 32450 of 2006, it is filled seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to refund a sum of Rs. 6,86,42,963/-. 20. Admittedly, as per the order dated 04.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the appeal filled by CG Holdings Private Limited, the 6th respondent herein, the appeal was allowed and the amount was directed to be refunded. To whom the amount has to be refunded, is the issue to be decided now. 21 Accordingly to the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, when the attachment amount is not due from the petitioner to the 6th respondent and when the petitioner did not hold that amount of the 6th respondent, the order of attachment itself is prime facie illegal. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments: AIR 1967 Sc 1547 , Income Tax Officer, Madras and another vs. Budha Pictures, Madras ( Paragraph no. 4) “4. The learned counsel for the appellant contents that Section 46(5-A) applied in four sets of circumstances: (1) When money is due from a person to the assessee: (2) When money may become due to the assessee: (3) When a person holds money for an assessee: and (4) When a person may hold money on account of the assessee. 4) “4. The learned counsel for the appellant contents that Section 46(5-A) applied in four sets of circumstances: (1) When money is due from a person to the assessee: (2) When money may become due to the assessee: (3) When a person holds money for an assessee: and (4) When a person may hold money on account of the assessee. He says that there is no reason for cutting down the words in categories (2) and (4): the words are plain and they do not suggest that at the time of notice a relationship, which may result in money being owned or being held on account of the assesse should subsist. In our view, if the assessee has no subsisting relationship with a person it would be speculative to think that person may get into relationship with the assessee and start owing money to him or start holding money for him. We can hardly believe that the Legislature framed this sub-section on speculative considerations. It seems to us that the Legislature contemplated a subsisting relationship of which the income Tax officer gets information and which could reasonably lead to recovery of arrears. . . . . 1988 (Supp) SCC 626, Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India and Others (Paragraph nos. 12,17,21,22) “12. It is manifestly clear from the observations of the Enquiry Officer extracted above that he could not come to a finding that a sum of Rs. 8,56,377.55 in respect of Which the garnishee order was passed was actually due by M/s Krishna Kapoor & Co. to M/s. Indo-Kashmir Carpets & Handicrafts. It is true that the Enquiry officer has observed that both the firms did not cooperate in the matter, but it is equally true that the revenue had failed to substantiate that the said sum was due by Krishna Kapoor & Co. to the other firm. The most glaring fact that has been found by the Enquiry officer is that although the IAC (Assistant), Range II, Amritsar, issued a show-cause notice to Krishna Kapoor & Co. under Section 226(3) in respect of Rs. 2,85,450, Yet he issued a garnishee order for Rs. 8,56,377.55. It has been observed by the Enquiry officer that it was due to the carelessness of the officer concerned that he did not issue the show cause notice for the sum of Rs. under Section 226(3) in respect of Rs. 2,85,450, Yet he issued a garnishee order for Rs. 8,56,377.55. It has been observed by the Enquiry officer that it was due to the carelessness of the officer concerned that he did not issue the show cause notice for the sum of Rs. 8,56, 377.55 for which a garnishee order was issued, but such carelessness, in our opinion, is unpardonable. Moreover, as stated already, there is no satisfactory evidence before the IAC (Assistant), Range II, Amritsar, that a sum of Rs. 8, 56,377.55 was due by the firm, Krishna Kapoor & Co., to M/s Indo-Kashmir Carpets and Handicrafts, in as much as the Enquiry Officer himself has been unable to come to a finding in respect of that amount. Thus, without giving the firm, Krishna Kapoor & Co., an opportunity of showing cause in respect of the sum of Rs. 8,56,377.55 under Section 226(3) of the Act, a garnishee order in respect of that amount was passed under Section 226(3) (X) and a very valuable property of the firm was put up to auction and sold to the petitioner. 17. There can be no doubt that when an order is made for the payment of a fictitious sum without giving any opportunity to a person, against whom the order is made, to show cause against the passing of such an order for the said sum, the order is nullity. In other words, in the eye of law it will be deemed that there was no existence of such an order and any step taken pursuant to or in enforcement of such an order will also be a nullity. It will be tantamount to selling a property in execution of a decree when the decree has no factual existence. In such a case also, the sale will be null and void, The garnishee order that was passed by the IAC (Assistant), Range II, Amritsar, for the sum of Rs. 8,56,377.55 is, therefore, null and void. 21. We are unable to accept the contention. It has already been held by us that the sale is a nullity and even though there was some misrepresentation on the part of the firm, it is difficult for us to recall the order setting aside the sale which is null and void. 8,56,377.55 is, therefore, null and void. 21. We are unable to accept the contention. It has already been held by us that the sale is a nullity and even though there was some misrepresentation on the part of the firm, it is difficult for us to recall the order setting aside the sale which is null and void. We are, however, of the view that in view of the conduct of the firm and/or its said partner, they should share along with the revenue a part of the compensation that may be allowed to the auction-purchaser. 22. It has already been noticed that a sum of Rs. 37,81,000 was deposited by the auction-purchaser. The auction-purcahser will be entitled to withdraw the said amount unconditionally. The revenue shall see that the said amount is refunded back to the auction-purchaser. Further, the auction-purchaser will be entitled to get interest on the said amount at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for a period of two years and a half, during which the amount remained blocked, by way of compensation. The amount of interest calculated at the said rate for the said period comes to Rs. 14,17.875. Out of the said amount, the revenue shall pay to the auction-purchaser a sum of Rs. 11,17,875 and the remaining sum of Rs. 3,00,000 shall be paid to the auction-purchaser by the firm M/s. Krishna Kapoor & Co. and/or the said Surinder Neth Kappor, who was the petitioner in the special leave petition. The said firm and/or Surinder Nath Kapoor shall pay the said amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to the auction-purchaser within three months from date, in default the auction-purchaser will be entitled to execute this order and realise the same by the sale of the self same property or such portion thereof as will be sufficient for the realisation of the said amount. The revenue is also directed to pay the said sum of Rs. 11,17,875 to the auction-purchaser within a period of two months from the date” 241. ITR 178, Vysya Bank Ltd. And Global Trust Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and another: “. . . There should be an obligation on the person on whom notice is served to pay money to the assessee, i.e., the subsisting relationship of a debtor and creditor is a sine qua non for the exercise of the power under the section. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and another: “. . . There should be an obligation on the person on whom notice is served to pay money to the assessee, i.e., the subsisting relationship of a debtor and creditor is a sine qua non for the exercise of the power under the section. The relationship of the petitioner-bank and the assessee is that of a debtor and creditor and therefore the Income Tax Officer has jurisdiction to attach the amount of fixed deposit receipts irrespective of the fact that the amount is payable at a later period, as on the date of service of notice the relationship of the bank and the assessee as that of debtor and creditor cannot be denied.” 148 ITR 608, Manohar Lal Ahuja and others vs. Income Tax Officer, collection-II, Kanpur and another: “The request of an assessee is irrelevant. The power under Section 226(3) coerces and force a stranger to pay. Such coercive measures cannot be adopted without strict compliance with the conditions precedent provided by the section.” 1978 ELT (J 630), Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras and others vs. Premraj and Ganapatraj and Co. (P) Ltd. (paragraph no.1) “. . . It was further submitted that this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 265 of the constitution, and given effect to what is provided under Article 265 of the constitution, which is in these terms:- “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” The duty that has been levied – we assume that the duty that has been imposed is also a tax within the meaning of Art.265 of the Constitution and no point was take in this regard before us, was certainly without the authority of law. There is, therefore no jurisdiction either to impose the tax or collect the same. This being so, the provisions of the Constitution must prevail notwithstanding the difficulties that may be experienced by the authorities who function under the Act in directing refund.” 22. Besides, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, wrongful collection has to be refunded to the person from whom it was recovered. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgments: (2009) 316 ITR 63 (Karn), Bhishma Pithamaha vs. Tax Recovery Officer: (paragraph nos.16 and 18) “16. Besides, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, wrongful collection has to be refunded to the person from whom it was recovered. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgments: (2009) 316 ITR 63 (Karn), Bhishma Pithamaha vs. Tax Recovery Officer: (paragraph nos.16 and 18) “16. From the reply to the impugned notice and the rejoinder sent by the Department it is clear that the petitioner owes no money to the mutt, i.e., the assessee. On the contrary, they have categorically stated that at no point of time, the Department has claimed that the petitioner is due in monies to the mutt. He is neither an assessee nor garnishee. Therefore, the Department cannot call upon the petitioner to pay any money to them at all. Therefore, Section 226 (3) (i) is not attracted. 18. If any money is already received by the Department from the banks in pursuance of the said notice, they are bound to refund the money to the persons from whom they have received it, i.e., the bankers who have made payment to the Department, as the collection of the said money has no legal basis and is without authority of law.” AIR 1965 SC 1321 , Municipal Council, Khurai and another vs, Kamal Kumar and another: (paragraph no.9) “9. . . . Under Art.265 of the Constitution no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. This clearly implies that the procedure for imposing the liability to pay a tax has to be strictly complied with. Where it its not so complied with the liability to pay the tax cannot be said to be according to law.” 1977 ELT (J 166), Premraj and Ganapatraj and Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and others: (Paragraph no. 4) 4. . . . That, however, does not end the matter because the recovery of excess duty was clearly and admittedly in contravention of the notification above extracted and , therefore, without jurisdiction so that the same is liable to be refunded by directions in the nature of mandamus to be issued by this court. . .” 1984 (18) E.L.T. 152 (Mad.), Asia Tobacco Company ltd. Vs. Union of India and others: (paragraph no.16) “16. . . . . .” 1984 (18) E.L.T. 152 (Mad.), Asia Tobacco Company ltd. Vs. Union of India and others: (paragraph no.16) “16. . . . In any event, once it is found that the levy and collection of duty are invalid in law or in other words have no sanction in law on the basis of the declaration that the withdrawal Notification did not take effect earlier to 07.12.1982, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after according the due declaration to that effect, can direct refund of the duty illegally collected. The restrictions as to limitations as found in the Act and the Rules cannot come in the way of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.” 23. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7, the said amount has been attached by the Income Tax Department for the tax due from the 6th respondent, hence, it has to be refunded only to the assessee. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 has relied on paragraph no.8 of the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.443 of 2011 which reads as follows: “8. On a perusal of entire records, it is clear that in no proceedings, the name of the appellants is mentioned. The entire transaction is between the income tax authorities and M/s. Narayanan Chettiar Industries as well as M/s. Chaitanya Builders. If for any reason the appellants are entitled for refund of the amount as the amount was deposited by M/s. Chaitanya Builders on behalf of M/s. Narayana Chettiar Industries, the appellants have to take appropriate proceedings against M/s. Narayana Chettiar Industries. Hence, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. . .” And also the following judgments: Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court in R.A.Coodzer & Company, Madras vs. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras; 1995 supp (3) SCC 199, Hope Textiles Ltd. And another vs. Union of India and Others; and (2011) 3 SCC 363 , Krishandevi Malchand Kamathia and others vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and other. 24. This Court has considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 25. 24. This Court has considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 25. Admittedly, by order dated 23.09.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Coimbatore, the Manager of State Bank of India, Chennai -10 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,56,88,256/- from the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner and this is towards the income tax and interest to be paid by CG Holdings Private Limited for the assessment year 2004-2005 and has per the said order dated 23.09.2005, the same has been past treating CG Holdings Private Limited as the holding company of the petitioner company, viz, Cheran Enterprises Private Limited and this action has been initiated under Section 226(3) of the Act, 1961. So also, by order dated 23.09.2005, the Manager, State Bank of India, Erode Main Branch, Erode, was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,86,42,963/- from the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner company, viz., Cheran Enterprises Private Limited towards the tax liability and interest for the assessment year 2004-2005 of CG Holdings Private Limited and this action also has been initiated under Section 226(3) of the Act. 26. As far as Section 226(3) of the Act is concerned, the assessing officer, by notice in writing, can require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold for or on account of assessee, to pay to the assessing officer. That is to say, as per Section 226 (3) of the Act, the said amount could have been attached from the account of the petitioner if such an amount is due from the petitioner company to CG Holdings Private Limited or if the petitioner holds that amount of the assessee. But, none of these circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court. 27. The stand of the respondent Department is that the 7th respondent, as a Director of the petitioner company himself, has directed the official respondents to appropriate the tax due of the 6th respondent from the account of the petitioner. As far as this stand of the respondent Department is concerned, though the 7th respondent is the Managing Director of the petitioner company, he is also a Director of the 6th respondent also and this is an important aspect that has to be kept in mind. As far as this stand of the respondent Department is concerned, though the 7th respondent is the Managing Director of the petitioner company, he is also a Director of the 6th respondent also and this is an important aspect that has to be kept in mind. Admittedly, CG Holdings Private Limited, the 6th respondent herein, for whose tax liability, this attachment is made, is a shareholder of the petitioner company. But, no provision of the Act which provides that the personal liability of a shareholder with regard to tax could be recovered from the assets or funds of the company, has been brought to the notice of this Court. Money belonging to the company, could not, in law, be utilised for adjusting demand, if any, due from the shareholders. When it is not established that the attached amount is due from the petitioner company to the assessee, viz., the 6th respondent or when it is not established that the petitioner company holds that amount of the assessee company, the request of the 7th respondent to appropriate that amount from the account of the petitioner is totally irrelevant. The request made by the 7th respondent cannot validate an invalid order or an invalid action. 28. Admittedly, as per the attachment orders, the said attachment has been made assuming that CG Holdings Private Limited is the holding company of the petitioner company. But, at paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent department in W.P.No. 32445 of 2006 which is signed on 16.06.2010, the first respondent has averred as follows: “12. I am to state that the word “Holding Company” found in the order dated 23/09/2005 is of no consequence, even as otherwise it was not on the basis that CG Holdings Private Limited, is the holding company of Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, the appropriation was done, but only on the request of the Managing Director of the petitioner company.” And at paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent department in W.P. Nos. 32445 and 32450 of 2006 which are signed on 24.09.2006, the first respondent has stated as follows: “10. . . . 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent department in W.P. Nos. 32445 and 32450 of 2006 which are signed on 24.09.2006, the first respondent has stated as follows: “10. . . . Assuming that and also accepting the contentions of the petitioner that the CG Holdings Private Limited is not the holding company of the petitioner, even then, the apportionment of tax dues being done only as per the valid instructions given by the Managing Director . . . .” 29. The said amounts have been attached from the Fixed Deposit a/c of the petitioner company of the petitioner company treating the 6th respondent as the holding company of the petitioner company. But, as per the stand taken by the first respondent himself, CG Holdings Private Limited is not the holding company of the petitioner company. The ground based on which the attachment has been made itself, even as per the stand of the 1st respondent, is on an incorrect stand. Consequently, it has to be held that the attachment is in nullity. Apart from this, before attachment, no notice was given to the petitioner company. That apart, as per the letter dated 03.06.2005 of the 7th respondent, viz., K.C. Palaniswamy, as a Director of the petitioner company, he has specifically stated as follows: “ . . . The company does not owe any money to either the Directors or shareholders for whose liability an attachment could be made. The does not owe any money to either KCP family or CGHPL. . . “ 30. The above extracted portion would indicate that as per the wordings of the 7th respondent himself, the petitioner company does not owe any money either to the Directors of shareholders of the 6th respondent and it is not the case of the respondent department also that the petitioner company owes any money to CG Holdings Private Limited or the said amount is due from the petitioner company to CG Holdings Private Limited. When the attachment order itself is in nullity, as per the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reported in (2009) 316 ITR 63 (Karn) , AIR 1965 SC 1321 , 1977 ELT (J 166), 1984 (18) E.L.T. 152 (Mad.), the relevant portions of which have been extracted above, the amount has to be refunded only to the petitioner. 31. 31. Besides, as per the attachment orders, the reason is that the 6ht respondent, viz., CG Holdings is the holding company of the petitioner company and it is not even established before this Court also that a sum of Rs. 25,56,88,256/- is due from the petitioner company to the 6th respondent. Under such circumstances, when the attachment is invalid, the said amount has to be refunded only to the petitioner. Consequently, W.P. Nos. 32445 and 32450 of 2006 are allowed. No costs. In view of the final order passed in these writ petitions, there is no need to pass any separate orders in the connected Miscellaneous petitions. Hence, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. 32. However, the order passed in W.P. Nos. 32445 and 32450 of 2006 is subject to the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Delhi High Court in Company Petition No. 292/2004 & Company Application Nos. 1459/2006 221/2007, 688/2010, 1061/2010 and 989/2007 in Company Petition No. 292 of 2004 and CCP (CO) Nos. 31/2005 and 16/2007 and also the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai, in C.P.Nos.65 of 2005 and 76 of 2005. To sum up: W.P. No. 32444 and 32446 of 2006 are closed; W.P.Nos. 32445 and 32450 of 2006 are allowed; W.P. No. 32447 and 32449 of 2006 are dismissed; and W.P. No. 32448 of 2006 is closed as in fructuous.