CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Upholds Validity of Attachment Orders in Tax Case: "Service of Orders Crucial," Says the Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of attachment orders in a tax case, emphasizing the crucial importance of serving statutory or administrative orders on the concerned parties. The ruling came in a civil appeal filed by the Commercial Tax Officer and others against Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd.

The case revolved around the non-provision of assessment orders and the lifting of attachment orders by the revenue. Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, contended that the revenue had failed to provide copies of assessment orders and did not lift the attachment orders. They argued that without receiving the assessment orders, they were unable to verify their correctness and comply with the provisions of the relevant tax acts.

The revenue, on the other hand, asserted that they had served the assessment orders and that the respondent had not objected to them in previous legal proceedings. They contended that the respondent's representations did not allege non-service of the assessment orders.

The High Court had allowed the respondent's writ petition, holding that the assessment orders were not served and, therefore, the attachment orders were invalid. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the case and emphasized that the respondent had participated in previous legal proceedings without disputing the service of the assessment orders. This conduct led the court to conclude that the respondent's claims were untenable and estopped from challenging the attachment orders based on non-service of orders.

Supreme Court highlighted the significance of serving orders on the concerned parties and held that a party cannot remain silent and later claim non-service of orders to challenge the validity of attachment orders.

In its judgment, the court stated, "When any statutory or administrative order visits a citizen or entity with adverse consequences, such an order has to be served upon the concerned person... A party cannot remain silent and later claim non-service of orders to challenge the attachment orders." The court further stressed that the conduct of the party is relevant and failure to raise objections or dispute the service of orders precludes them from later challenging the attachment orders.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and revived the attachment notice issued by the revenue. 

This judgment clarifies the legal position on the service of orders and its impact on attachment orders, providing guidance for future cases and emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance in tax matters.

Date of Decision: March 15, 2023

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS.  vs NEERAJA PIPES PVT. LTD.             

Latest Legal News