TATA SKY LIMITED, RANCHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been served, with the garnishee order dated 15th January, 2013 attaching its bank account for a demand of Rs. 1,09,07,614/- only. The said demand is subject matter of revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared before the original authority and submitted its reply and on the date fixed by the original authority the matter was not taken up. Subsequently ignoring the petitioner's reply, the authority passed the ex parte order and created huge liability of the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, has been done by passing an ante dated order, for which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact reveals that the authority has purportedly passed the order on 14.2.2011 and demand notice has been served on 7.9.2012 after eighteen months and this is one of the important fact which certainly proves of passing the order ante dated.

(3.) However, the issue before us is only with respect to justification over passing the order of attaching the bank account of the petitioner, a running concern, for which revision is pending and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the revisional authority to decide, at least, the application for grant of interim relief, if the revision itself cannot be decided by the revisional authority. It is submitted that similar order has been passed in W.P.(T) No. 479 of 2013 , : 2013 (3) 592 (Adhunik Alloys & Power Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) disposed of on 24th January, 2013.