TIRUMALA CABS, PROPRIETARY CONCERN Vs. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD II COMMISSIONERATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KALYAN Jyoti Sengupta Learned counsel for the Revenue does not want to file any counter as he feels that this matter can be disposed of finally going by the statements and averments in the writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard both the learned counsel. The grievance of the writ petitioner is in relation to the notice issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 bank purporting to recover an amount of Rs.28,56,464/ - allegedly payable by respondent No.2 to the writ petitioner as the same is being held by second respondent. The second respondent has not raised any objection to the said notice.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue, while countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, says that by virtue of power under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, the notice has been issued and such action is perfectly just and correct. However, he says that hearing can be given to the writ petitioner for quantification of exact amount since the figure mentioned in the impugned notice is disputed.