Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.40 seconds)
Sangli Aluminium Extrusions Pvt. Ltd vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 22 January, 2024 cites

M/S. Sonoma Management Partners Pvt. ... vs Bank Of Maharashtra, Through Chairman ... on 22 November, 2016

21 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. We shall first deal with the issue of the Sales Tax Department. As mentioned earlier, the amount of Rs. 8,57,772/- deposited by the Petitioner in this Court towards the dues of the sales tax, can be paid over to the Sales Tax Department as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Since this is the statement, we direct that the Registry shall allow the Sales Tax Department to withdraw the sum of Rs.8,57,772/- together with interest accrued thereon, if any, within a period of three weeks from today. This now leaves us to deal with the argument of Ms. Vyas whether the Petitioner is liable to pay any further amounts towards the dues of the sales tax. In this regard, we find that the argument of Ms. Vyas that the Petitioner is liable to pay the additional sales tax which now comes to approximately Rs.1,64,26,170/- is wholly without merit. We say this because we find that the arguments canvassed by Ms. Vyas are Page 15 of 29 JANUARY 22, 2024 Aswale ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2024 21:40:48 ::: WP.1310.09.DOCX squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Sonoma Management (supra) [2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9649]. The facts of this case would reveal that the Petitioner Company therein had purchased the property from Bank of Baroda under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and which belonged to one M/s. Weiler International Electronics Pvt Ltd (for short "M/s. Weiler"). After purchasing the property under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, a conveyance was also duly registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Khandala on 10 th March 2011. It is, at the time of this registration, that the Petitioner Company for the very first time perused the 7/12 extract of the property which was purchased, and learnt that there was an encumbrance of the Sales Tax to the extent of Rs. 18,38,709/-. Though this encumbrance was not disclosed to the Petitioner Company, and for which it contemplated taking legal steps against Bank of Baroda, the Petitioners finally decided, keeping in mind the magnitude of the investment already made, that they would accept the conveyance with the encumbrance of the Sales Tax to the extent of Rs. 18,38,709/-. After execution of the conveyance, the Petitioners expected their names to be mutated in the property and revenue records. It is at this time that the Petitioners learnt of certain property tax dues amounting to Rs. 10.05 Lacs. To avoid Page 16 of 29 JANUARY 22, 2024 Aswale ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2024 21:40:48 ::: WP.1310.09.DOCX further complications, the Petitioners also cleared these property tax dues, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. Despite this, the Petitioners' name was still not mutated in the 7/12 extracts or revenue records of the suit property. Therefore, the Petitioners on making enquiries, were informed that they would have to obtain a No Claim Certificate from the Sales Tax Department. Accordingly, the Petitioners addressed a letter to the Sales Tax Department seeking a No Claim Certificate. It is at this stage that the Petitioner Company was shocked to learn that the claim of Respondent No. 4 - Sales Tax Department, was amounting to Rs.28 Crores. It is in this backdrop that the Petition came to be filed, inter alia seeking a direction to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Sales Tax Department) to forbear and refrain from, in any manner, asserting any charge on the property purchased by the Petitioner Company from Bank of Baroda under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In these facts, this Court, after hearing the parties, inter alia held that since the Petitioner had no notice of any claim and/or charge of the Sales Tax Department other than the claim of Rs.18,38,709/-, the same could not be recovered from the Petitioner. The relevant portion of this decision reads thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

P.P. Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 13 December, 2006

In fact, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd. [(2006) 1 SCC 215: AIR 2006 SC 865] has been followed by another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sherwood Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 2086 of 2015 decided on 16 October, 2015] to which both of us were parties. Over there also, exactly the same argument was canvassed on behalf of the Sales Tax Authorities and was repelled by this Court in paragraph 30 of the aforesaid decision. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the Sales Tax Authorities (Respondent No. 4) cannot recover the Sales Tax dues (except to the extent of Rs. 18,38,709/-) from the Petitioners by enforcing their charge on the said property." 22 We find that the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. In the facts of the present case also, no notice whatsoever was given of any claim and/or charge of the Sales Tax Department prior to the purchase of the property. Once this is the case, we find that the argument of the Sales Tax Department that the Petitioner is liable to pay any amount (other Page 22 of 29 JANUARY 22, 2024 Aswale ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2024 21:40:48 ::: WP.1310.09.DOCX than Rs.8,57,772/-) to the Sales Tax department before the suit property could be transferred in its name is wholly without merit. 23 We also seriously doubt whether by merely having a claim, the Sales Tax Department can say that they have a first charge on all the properties of the Defaulting Company. A charge attaches itself to a particular property, and that happens when that particular property is attached as per the provisions of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 Next