Private Limited & Anr v. Assistant Commissioner Of

1 WP No.120/2020 dtd. 11.02.20 suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.120 OF 2020 Dinar Tarcar Resources (India) Private Limited & Anr. .... Petitioners Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Advocate for the Petitioners.Ms. A. Razaq, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- M.S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ. thDate:- 11 February, 2020 ORAL ORDER(Per M.S. Sonak, J.) Learned counsel for the parties state that there is no difficultyfor this Bench to take up this matter. 2.Heard Mr. Vaze, for the petitioners and Ms. Razaq, for therespondent. 3. Ms. Razaq states that the order to freeze the bank account of thepetitioners has been revoked with immediate effect. In fact, she placed 2 WP No.120/2020 dtd. 11.02.20 on record communication dated 10.02.2020 addressed to the bankinforming the bank that the attachment of the bank account made videthe impugned notice stands revoked immediately in case of DinarTarcar Resources (India) Private Limited and in case of Shri Dinnar Tarcar as well. 4. Ms. Razaq explains the circumstances under which the freezingorder came to be issued. She points out that though, the order dated29.03.2017 at Exhibit B, page 20 of the paper book makes it clear thatno tax dues are payable by the petitioners for the Assessment Year2012-13, there was some communication gap in the matter ofuploading of this order on the website of the Central Processing Center(CPC). She points out that it is for this reason that even a notice wasissued to the petitioners before any coercive action could be taken.Since, there was no response, such coercive action was taken. Shepoints out that no sooner this was realized, the department, on its own,has written to the bank revoking the coercive action. 5.In order to avoid such instances, it is only appropriate that thisdepartment uploads the orders at the earliest. Ms. Razaq, oninstructions, states that the Assessing Officer, in the present case, willupload the order dated 29.03.2017, which is to be found at Exhibit B,page 20 of the paper book, on the website at the earliest. Ms. Razaqstates that otherwise also, the process of digitization is on and these are probably instances of some teething troubles which will also be sortedout at the earliest. 6.According to us, with the aforesaid, the issue relating to freezingor attachment of the bank account stands suitably redressed. 7. The second issue relates to adjustment of the refund amountotherwise due and payable to the petitioners. For the present, theadjustment is to the tune of hardly Rs.27,250/-. Mr. Vaze howeverpoints out that there are further refunds due to the petitioners and thesame are also being adjusted based upon such mis-communication. 8. According to us, the petitioners, can immediately write to theauthorities explaining their version of the matter and we are quite surethat any further action in the matter of adjustments will be taken afterdue consideration of the petitioners' version. 9.The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.There shall be no order as to costs. 10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order. SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J.