Therefore, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 68 the assets, rights and liabilities of APBCL now stand apportioned between the State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana in the manner as provided in Section 53 of Act, 2014. Section 53 provides subject to the agreement the aforesaid assets and liabilities of the Corporation, shall stand apportioned on the basis of population ratio. The petitioner has not acquired nor can acquire in view of above legal position any property from APBCL nor the liability thereof. The State of Telangana has acquired these assets and properties and liability of APBCL, being the recorded assessee proportionately. Therefore, it is absurd to contend that the writ petitioner is the successor in interest of APBCL. It is absolutely separate legal entity, as rightly contended by Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Advocate General appearing for the writ petitioner, that it has not started business nor any income has been derived. It does not appear from object clause of Memorandum of Association that it has acquired any rights, assets and properties of APBCL. Thus, the question of shouldering liability by the writ petitioner also does not arise. We are of the view that just because the petitioner paid tax dues on mistaken application of law, it cannot be precedent for recovery for the simple reason that illegal and wrongful action cannot be precedent, furthermore there cannot be estoppel as against provision of law. 13. Therefore, we hold that the actions taken by the Revenue against the writ petitioner are without jurisdiction and wholly illegal. 14. The alleged dues of APBCL, in relation to the assessment year 2012-13 after the appointed day, can be recovered from the successor State Governments in terms of Section 68 (2) of Act 2014, as all these dues being part of liability can be apportioned accordingly. In the event, State of Telangana does not pay the proportionate liability of the tax dues for the assessment year 2012-13 or previous thereto, if any, it would be open for the respondents to recover the same from the State of Telangana, since It is to share the proportionate liability along with assets of the erstwhile APBCL which was again a separate legal entity and an assessee. We are of the view that the writ petitioner cannot be equated with the Government in order to get Constitutional immunity from payment of taxes. 15. We, therefore, set aside and quash the orders and notices issued against the writ petitioner. However, liberty is given to the respondent officials to recover the dues from the State of Telangana, if it is not paid, and that can only be done after issuance of notice under Section 226 of the Act, 1961.

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONBLE SRI SANJAY KUMAR              

WRIT PETITION Nos.5606 of 2015  

01-05-2015

Telangana State Beverage Corporation Limited, rep.by its Managing Director,
Prohibition & Excise Complex,M.J. Road, Nampaly, Hyderabad-500 001.Petitioner  

1.Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, represented by its
Secretary.2. Tax Revenue Recovery Officer-I, Office of Commissioner of Income
Tax-I, Room No.407, 4th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan,    Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh,  
Hyderabad.Respondents  

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy,          
                              Advocate General for State of Telangana


Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Assistant
                                  Solicitor General of India

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri J.V. Prasad
Standing Counsel for Income Tax                

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases Referred:

      - Nil -
THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA        
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT PETITION Nos.5606 & 5616 of 2015  

Date: 01.05.2015

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Honble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)  
                The above two writ petitions have been filed challenging the
prohibitory orders and warrant of attachment of moveable property
issued by the 2nd respondent on 28.02.2015.

2.              The factual and legal grounds of challenge in the aforesaid
petitions are similar and identical.
                The petitioner has been incorporated under the provisions of
Companies Act, 2013 on 30.05.2014 and carrying on business on behalf
of the State of Telangana in respect of sale of Indian Made Liquor and
Foreign Liquor (In short, IML and FL).  It is claimed that the petitioner
is extended arm of the State Government as an instrumentality of the
State of Telangana.   The petitioner has also been conferred a monopoly
status in respect of the said activities in the State of Telangana, as such,
the petitioner has Permanent Account Number, being AAFCTO204P,  
issued by the 3rd respondent.   In the course of carrying on such
business, on 27.2.2015 the aforesaid prohibitory orders and warrant of
attachment of moveable property were issued restraining the petitioner
from selling the liquor stock, which is the property of State of Telangana.
The said prohibitory orders were issued contending incorrectly  that the
petitioner is the successor in business of Andhra Pradesh Beverages
Corporation Limited (APBCL)  under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Reorganization Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2014).    It is
also alleged that a sum of Rs.1468,63,95,620/- was the proportionate
amount due from the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13.  The
aforesaid prohibitory orders and attachment orders were issued by the
2nd respondent under the provision of Rule 26 (1) (iii) of the second
schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act,
1961).  It is contended that prior to the impugned prohibitory orders, the
petitioner has never received any notice of assessment for the
assessment year 2012-2013, and till date the petitioner does not receive
any copy of the assessment orders for the same assessment year.  As
such, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to commence tax recovery
proceedings against the petitioner, as no notice was served on the
petitioner during the assessment proceedings nor any assessment order
was served upon the petitioner.  No notice of demand was served upon
the assessee under Section 156 of the Act, 1961.   Since the respondents
2 and 3 have failed to serve notice of demand upon the petitioner as
required under Section 156 of Act, 1961, they have no jurisdiction to
commence the tax recovery proceedings against the assessee.   Indeed,
the petitioner cannot be called as an assessee in default under Section
220 of the Act, 1961,   if the petitioner has not been served with the
assessment order.  The above impugned orders make a reference to the
Tax Recovery Certificate No.AABCA7385A/171/TRO-1/2014-15, dated  
19.02.2015.  The petitioner has not received copy of the aforesaid Tax
Recovery Certificate.  In any event, the tax recovery certificate is totally
inapplicable to the petitioner as it is with reference to some other
assessee.   The Permanent Account Number, as stated in the tax recovery
certificate, does not belong to the petitioner.   As such, the petitioner
cannot be considered to be an assessee in default.  Under Section 222
read with second Schedule of the Act, 1961, attachment of moveable
property can be done only in case of default.  Consequently, attachment
proceedings are without jurisdiction.  The tax recovery certificate was
drawn by the 2nd respondent and the Tax Recovery Officer has to issue
notice on the alleged defaulter under Rule 2 of the second schedule of the
Act, 1961.  The said notice is required to be effected through a statutory
form ITCP No.1.  In the present case, no such notice in Form ITCP No.1
has been served on the petitioner.  As the respondents have failed to
comply with Rule 2 of the second schedule of Act, 1961 by serving the
form in ITCP No.1, the respondents have no jurisdiction to commence the
tax recovery proceedings by issuing the impugned prohibitory orders.
The prohibitory orders were issued without complying with the condition
in Rule 20 of the second schedule of the Act, 1961.  Under Rule 20 (2),
the Tax Recovery Officer has to serve a warrant in writing specifying the
name of the defaulter and the amount to be realized.  The impugned
prohibitory orders were issued without issuing warrant specifying the
name of the defaulter and the amount to be realized.  As such, the
respondents have no jurisdiction to commence the tax recovery
proceedings and to issue the impugned prohibitory orders under the law.
The liquor stocks belong to the State of Telangana, and the same do not
form the property of the petitioner.  The petitioner is holding the said
property only as an agent and custodian of the State of Telangana.   The
orders for supply and the invoices categorically show that the property,
which is sought to be attached, belong to the State of Telangana, and not
to the petitioner herein.   The petitioner is not the successor in business
of APBCL.  The respondents never treated the petitioner as the successor
of APBCL for the assessment proceedings 2012-13.  The respondents
also did not treat the petitioner as the successor of APBCL for the
purpose of serving assessment order. Nonetheless, the respondents
treated the petitioner as successor of APBCL only for the purpose of tax
recovery proceedings under the Scheme of Distribution of Assets and
Liabilities, the income tax liabilities have to be borne by the Government
of Andhra Pradesh and Government of Telangana respectively.  The said
scheme has been approved by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh  
vide G.O.Ms.No.239, Revenue (Ex.II) Department, dated 27.5.2014.
Therefore, the attachment orders are arbitrary, unlawful and ultra vires
the provisions of the Act, 1961.

3.              In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it has
been stated to justify the aforesaid order that the petitioner is the
successor in business of APBCL as per Section 53 read with Section 68
of the Act 2014, in respect of the territories falling in the State of
Telangana.  As a result of reorganization of the State, as per State
Government G.O.Ms.No.187, Revenue (Ex.II) Department, dated  
16.5.2014, a new Corporation was incorporated in the name and style of
M/s. Telangana State Beverages Corporation Limited (TSBCL), having its
registered office at 2nd Floor, Prohibition & Excise Complex, 9 & 10
Eastern Block, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.  As per G.O.Ms.No.239,  
dated 27.5.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 31.5.2015, the Government  
had appropriated the existing moveable assets between both the
Corporations of APBCL and TSBCL.   The assets and liabilities have been
shared based on the population ratio which was arrived at 58.32 : 41.68.
For the Assessment year 2011-12 as per the directions of this Court in
Writ Petition No.22430 of 2014 the petitioner has a share of liability
amounting to Rs.83,36,00,000/-  on 6.11.2014 which is 41.68% of the
total amount paid by both the Corporations aggregating to Rs.200 crores.
The income tax demand was raised for the assessment year 2012-13 i.e.,
financial year 2011-12 during which time TSBCL does not exist.  The
petitioner is estopped from denying the liability of income tax demand as
it had already accepted by paying its share of demand pertaining to
assessment year 2011-12.   The assessing officer has passed the
assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13 for which the relevant
accounting period is from 1st April, 2011 to 31st March, 2012.  The
assessing officer has brought to tax the income that was received by the
assessee, APBCL, from its business operations during the period relevant
for the assessment year 2012-13, during which the petitioner herein is a
non-existent.  Subsequent to the accounting period relevant for the
assessment year 2012-13, part of the assets and liabilities of the
assessee, APBCL, stood transferred to the petitioner herein under
Act 6 of 2014.   Technically, no notice of demand was served on the
petitioner under Section 156 of the Act, 1961  as the assessment order
was passed for the assessment year 2012-13 during the accounting
period relevant for the assessment year, when the petitioner herein was
not in existence.  The petitioner was incorporated only during the
financial year 2014-15.     It is contended that the petitioner must take
liability including tax along with assets, indeed it has taken for the
assessment year 2011-12.   Accordingly, the tax liability of the petitioner
works out to Rs.1225,19,94,125/- relating to the assessment year
2012-13 and  2013-14.  Since the assessee Corporation has not
discharged its tax liability, recovery proceedings were initiated  by the
Tax Recovery Officer by issuing ITCP Nos.2 & 5 under Rules 20  &
26 (1) (iii) of the second schedule to the Act, 1961.   As per the provision
of Section 170 (3) of the Act, 1961, the assessing officer has recorded its
finding  vide letter dated 18.2.2015  wherein it was stated that IML/FL
sale proceeds, including the margins, are directly being credited into the
treasury account of the State Government as per G.O.Ms.No.614,
Revenue [Ex.II (2)] Department, dated 6.5.2005.   A clear finding was
recorded by the assessing officer that the income tax dues pertaining to
the share of TSBCL, successor in business, has to be recovered from it by
the Tax Recovery Officer, on being referred to him.  Hence, there is no
requirement of serving a demand notice or assessment order on TSBCL.
After reference is made to the Tax Recovery Officer by the assessing
officer, then the proceedings of the Tax Recovery Officer can be initiated
by him even though he has not served a demand notice or assessment
order on the petitioner.  Therefore, the proceedings and the jurisdiction
of the Tax Recovery Officer are valid.   Notice under Rule 2 of the second
schedule to the Income Tax Act has been issued to the assessee.   Even
though the tax recovery certificate was drawn in the name of the
predecessor, APBCL, the petitioner being the successor in business to
APBCL in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Telangana,
the liability pertaining to its share has to be paid by the petitioner as it
has already received the assets from APBCL.   Hence, there is no
violation of provision of Section 222 or Rule 2 or Rule 20 of the second
schedule of the Act, 1961.   It will appear from the specimen orders for
supply and invoices, all the transactions are monitored by the Managing
Director, TSBCL, and only the name of the Government was mentioned
therein.  The depots are also in the name of TSBCL and the stock is
delivered and sold at the depots.    The petitioner cannot invoke Article
289 (1) of the Constitution of India as it is not the extended arm of the
State Government and it has a special legal entity.  The petitioner itself
agreed that as per the Scheme of Distribution of Assets and Liabilities,
including those of income tax, the same was approved by
G.O.Ms.No.239, dated 27.5.2014.

4.              The learned Advocate General appearing for the writ
petitioner in both the writ petitions, while placing the above fact, submits
that the writ petitioner is a separate legal entity and it came into being
after the relevant assessment years, for which the alleged recovery
proceedings initiated against the petitioner.  Admittedly it is neither an
assessee nor a garnishee, for which this action can be taken.  Even the
writ petitioner cannot be assessed to tax as it is a part and parcel of the
State of Telangana.   The composition of the petitioner would clearly
show that it is absolutely an organ of the Government.   So, it
enjoys Constitutional immunity under Article 289 (1) of the Constitution
of India.

5.               According to him, the recovery has to be made in
compliance with Sections 220 & 222 of the Act, 1961.   It would appear
from the aforesaid two Sections that there must be an assessment order
against the assessee, followed by the notice of demand under Section 156
of Act, 1961, in case of failure of complying with the same the recovery
proceedings can be started.   Admittedly no assessment order has been
passed against the petitioner nor the petitioner is a deemed assessee in
default.  The order of attachment or restraint order is also not in
consonance with Section 222 read with Rule 26 (1) (ii) of the second
schedule of the Act, 1961.   The writ petitioner is not a transferee or the
successor in interest of APBCL under the provisions of Act, 2014.
Nothing has been succeeded by this petitioner as far as the assets and
liabilities of the erstwhile APBCL is concerned.

6.              Mr. J.V. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the Revenue, on the
other hand, justifies the action, and contends that it would appear from
the provision of Act, 2014, this writ petitioner is the successor in interest
of APBCL, as such by virtue of Section 226 (3) (iii) read with Section
170 (3) of the Act, 1961,  the proportionate share of the liabilities can be
recovered from the writ petitioner.   It would appear from the records that
the petitioner is the successor in interest as far as the assets and
properties and businesses are concerned.   Therefore, notices issued and
order of attachment made are perfectly justified under the law.

7.              After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the statements and averments made in the pleadings and
perusing the necessary documents, the only question that arises in these
two cases is whether any recovery proceedings can be initiated against
the writ petitioner for the alleged income tax dues as claimed by
the Revenue.

8.              From the records, it is an undisputed position that the
petitioner came into being as a company and as such it is separate legal
entity, on being incorporated on 30th May, 2014.  Tax dues in relation to
which recovery is sought to be made concern with financial year 2011-12
and assessment year 2012-13. At that time the petitioner was not in
existence.   Admittedly the petitioner is not an assessee nor a deemed
assessee or a default assessee.  No assessment order was passed against
it nor any notice of demand was issued.

9.              Going by the legal provision as mentioned in Section 156 of
Act, 1961, the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated against the
petitioner.  Therefore, apparently, notices are absolutely illegal and
invalid as the same are issued without following the provision of Section
156 of  Act, 1961.  Section 156 of Act, 1961 is set out hereunder:
156. Notice of demand:-  When any tax, interest, penalty, fine
or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed
under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the
assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying
the sum so payable:

     Provided that where any sum is determined to be payable
by the assessee or by the deductor under sub-section (1) of
section 143 or sub-section (1) of section 200A, the intimation
under those sub-sections shall be deemed to be a notice of
demand for the purposes of this section.


10.             Now, looking at the provision of clause (ii) of sub-section (3)
of Section 226 of the Act, 1961, as urged by Mr. Prasad,  whether we can
conclude the writ petitioner as a person holding any money for or on
account of the assessee, so much so the tax can be recovered from It, in
respect of the dues of APBCL is concerned.   We think, on the facts
narrated above, the answer is in negative for the reason stated
hereunder.

11.             By virtue of Section 68 read with Section 53 of Act, 2014,
successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have acquired the
assets and took over the liability in respect of the Companies and
Corporations specified in the ninth schedule of Act, 2014.   The APBCL is
one of the Corporations as mentioned in ninth schedule being Item
No.25.   Sections 53 & 68 of Act, 2014 provide as follows:
53. Assets and liabilities of State undertakings:-  (1) The assets and
liabilities
relating to any commercial or industrial undertaking of the existing State of
Andhra Pradesh, where such undertaking or part thereof is exclusively located
in,
or its operations are confined to, a local area, shall pass to the State in
which that
area is included on the appointed day, irrespective of the location of its
headquarters:

        Provided that where the operation of such undertaking becomes inter-
State by virtue of the provisions of Part II, the assets and liabilities of

        (a)     the operational units of the undertaking shall be apportioned  
                between the two successor States on location basis; and

        (b)     the headquarters of such undertaking shall be apportioned      
                between the two successor States on the basis of population    
                ratio.

        (2) Upon apportionment of the assets and liabilities, such assets and
liabilities shall be transferred in physical form on mutual agreement or by
making
payment or adjustment through any other mode as may be agreed to by the
successor States.

68. Provisions for various companies and corporations:- (1) The companies
and corporations specified in the Ninth Schedule constituted for the existing
State
of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in
those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that
day, subject to the provisions of this section.

        (2) The assets, rights and liabilities of the companies and corporations
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be apportioned between the successor States
in
the manner provided in section 53.

12.             Therefore, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 68 the
assets, rights and liabilities of APBCL now stand apportioned between
the State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana in the manner as
provided in Section 53 of Act, 2014.  Section 53 provides subject to the
agreement  the aforesaid assets and liabilities of the Corporation, shall
stand apportioned on the basis of population ratio.   The petitioner has
not acquired nor can acquire in view of above legal position any property
from APBCL nor the liability thereof.   The State of Telangana has
acquired these assets and properties and liability of APBCL, being the
recorded assessee proportionately.   Therefore, it is absurd to contend
that the writ petitioner is the successor in interest of APBCL.   It is
absolutely separate legal entity, as rightly contended by Mr. K.
Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Advocate General appearing for the writ
petitioner, that it has not started business nor any income has been
derived. It does not appear from object clause of Memorandum of
Association that it has acquired any rights, assets and properties of
APBCL.   Thus, the question of  shouldering liability by the writ petitioner
also does not arise.   We are of the view that just because the petitioner
paid tax dues on mistaken application of law, it cannot be precedent for
recovery for the simple reason that illegal and wrongful action cannot be
precedent,  furthermore there cannot be estoppel as against provision
of law.

13.             Therefore, we hold that the actions taken by the Revenue
against the writ petitioner are without jurisdiction and wholly illegal.

14.             The alleged dues of APBCL, in relation to the assessment
year 2012-13 after the appointed day, can be recovered from the
successor State Governments in terms of Section 68 (2) of Act 2014, as
all these dues being part of liability can be apportioned accordingly.  In
the event, State of Telangana does not pay the proportionate liability of
the tax dues for the assessment year 2012-13 or previous thereto, if any,
it would be open for the respondents to recover the same from the State
of Telangana, since It is to share the proportionate liability along with
assets of the erstwhile APBCL which was again a separate legal entity
and an assessee.   We are of the view that the writ petitioner cannot be
equated with the Government in order to get Constitutional immunity
from payment of taxes.

15.             We, therefore, set aside and quash the orders and notices
issued against the writ petitioner.  However, liberty is given to the
respondent officials to recover the dues from the State of Telangana,
if it is not paid, and that can only be done after issuance of notice under
Section 226 of the Act, 1961.
16.             Thus, both the Writ Petitions are allowed.   There will be no
order as to costs.
         Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also
stand closed.___________________________    
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ
__________________  
Sanjay Kumar, J
Dt. 01.05.2015

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.