Holding

An attachment order under the Revenue Recovery Act is enforceable only to the extent that the underlying assessment orders have been validly served as prescribed by Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules.

Summary

The Commercial Tax Officer appealed against a Telangana High Court order that set aside attachment notices issued against Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd. for alleged VAT arrears. The assessee claimed it never received copies of assessment orders for assessment years 2009‑10 and 2010‑11, arguing that without proper service under Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules the revenue could not attach its property. The High Court held that the revenue had no record of serving those assessment orders and therefore the attachment notices were invalid. The Supreme Court examined the statutory requirement of service, the assessee’s conduct of remaining silent and not filing objections, and the revenue’s ability to rely on assessment orders that were properly served for earlier years. It held that attachment is enforceable only to the extent that the underlying assessment orders have been validly served, reviving the 20‑Feb‑2018 attachment notice but limiting recovery to arrears for years 2005‑06 to 2008‑09. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the assessment orders for AY 2009‑10 and 2010‑11 were validly served on the assessee in accordance with Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules.
Whether non‑service of assessment orders defeats the revenue’s power to issue attachment notices under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.
Whether the revenue may recover tax arrears for assessment years where service of assessment orders was established.
Whether the assessee’s silence and failure to raise objections precludes it from challenging the service of assessment orders.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the attachment notice dated 20‑Feb‑2018.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Revenue Recovery Act, 1864s. 27
Telangana State Value Added Tax Act, 2005s. 25, s. 26, s. 27, s. 42

Subjects

service of noticeassessment orderattachmentVAT ActRevenue Recovery Actnon‑serviceRule 64tax arrearsproperty attachment

Judgment

926 [2023]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 2 S.C.R. 926 [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS.
v.
NEERAJA PIPES PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 760 of 2023)
B MARCH 15, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Notices/Process: Mode of service of orders and notices – Non-
service of notice/assessment order – Consequence of – Assessee
alleged that the Revenue did not provide copies of assessment order
C
and proceeded to claim tax as arrears and attached the properties
of the assessee – High Court, relying on r. 64 held that revenue did
not have record evidencing the service of assessment order on the
assessee; and that it was not clear on what basis revised notices as
well as notices of attachment claiming arrears of tax from the assessee
D were issued, and thus set aside the same – On appeal, held: Under
r. 64, 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; especially so, when that order is
appealable or subject to revision by higher authorities – In the
previous writ petition where assessee were impleaded, the assessee
E
did not dispute that it had not received the copies of assessment
orders – It highlights the assessee’s conduct in deliberately choosing
to keep quiet, even when it could have raised a grievance –
Moreover, the assessee also did not dispute that it had not received
the copies of assessment orders, in those writ proceedings – Further,
F it did not seek copies of the assessment orders, in the representations
addressed to the revenue after the second attachment order was
issued – It cannot be said that the attachment orders were
unenforceable, because the assessment orders were not served on
it – Judgment and order of the High Court is set aside – Attachment
notice in Form V is revived and it is open to the revenue to recover
G
the dues owed, as per the said notice – Telangana VAT Rules – r. 64
– Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 – Telangana State
Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Amina Bi Kaskar (D) by LRs. v. Union of India & Ors.
(2018) 16 SCC 266; Sri Budhia Swain & Ors. v.
H
926
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. v. NEERAJA PIPES 927
PVT. LTD.

Gopinath Deb & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 396 : [1999] 2 A
SCR 1189 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 16 SCC 266 referred to Para 17
[1999] 2 SCR 1189 referred to Para 17 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 760 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2021 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No. 3703 of 2020.
C
M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant
Kumar Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, Advs. for the Appellants.
M. Vijaya Bhaskar, Chandan Mishra, B. Paramesh, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appeal was heard, with consent of counsel for the parties.
The appellant, Commercial Tax Officer (hereafter called “the revenue”)
is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court1, by
which a writ petition filed by the respondent (hereafter “the assessee”) E
was allowed.
2. The assessee questioned the revenue, complaining that it did
not provide copies of assessment order for the years 2005-06, 2008-09,
2009-10, and 2010-11 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,
1957 (hereafter “APGST Act”). and Telangana State Value Added Tax F
Act, 2005 (hereafter “VAT Act”) and for not lifting attachment order
dated 03.02.2012 and another, revised attachment order dated 20.02.2018
under Form V invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864
(hereafter “the RR Act”), under Section 27 of the VAT Act. The revenue
had issued assessment orders for the assessment years (AYs) 2005-06 G
to 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, under which ` 1,88,81,000/-,
` 2,38,84,000/- and ` 2,21,83,854/- was claimed respectively, as tax due
and payable.

1
Dated 28.09.2021 in WP No. 3703/2020 H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A 3. The assessee argued, before the High Court that the revenue,
despite several requests, did not furnish assessment orders, and that it
was not aware of them. Since these orders were allegedly not served,
the assessee submitted that it was unable to examine their correctness
and whether they conformed with the provisions of the VAT Act, and
further to enable it to avail remedies under the statute. The assessee
B
alleged that the notice dated 03.02.2012 in Form V under the RR Act
invoking Section 27 of the VAT Act for non-payment of arrears of tax to
the tune of ` 5,59,58,758/- and attaching its various properties, led it to
bring to the notice of the authorities that the arrears so reflected in Form
V were erroneous. The assessee requested to cancel the said demand,
C since the assessment orders for the year 2001-02 and 2003-04 were
revised on 24.04.2005 resulting in excess tax collection; it requested that
such excess tax collected be adjusted for the subsequent demand.
According to the assessee, the revenue thereafter did not issue any
further notice and after lapse of about six years, issued a revised notice
in Form V dated 20.02.2018 showing arrears of tax in a sum of
D
` 5,59,78,758/- for the tax periods 2005-06 to 2008-09, 2009-10 and
2010-11 and attached land and building (belonging to the assessee) being
Sy. No.182 - H.No.7-3-52/1/2 situated at Gaganpahad village, Rajender
Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district measuring 2,224.05 square yards.
The assessee relied on various representations2 asking the revenue to
E cancel the demand and attachment notices.
4. It was also urged that, though the assessee made several
requests for furnishing copies of assessment orders and also the date of
service of such orders passed, the revenue maintained silence, and
provided neither. The assessee therefore urged that without effecting
F the service of the assessment orders, as mandated by law, the revenue
could not claim tax shown as arrears, and could not resort to provisions
of the RR Act, attaching its properties.
5. The revenue, in its return, resisted the claim and urged that the
assessee engaged itself in the business of manufacturing and selling HR
G strips, sections, and pipes and effected intra-state and inter-state sales.
For AY 2005-06 to 2008-09, it was issued with show cause notice in
Form VAT 305A on 06.06.2009 proposing to raise a demand of
` 1,86,80,708/-. Objections were called for, from the assessee which
2
Dated 18.06.2018, 16.07.2018, 23.08.2018, 24.10.2018, 05.03.2019, 18.06.2019,
H and 04.11.2019.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. v. NEERAJA PIPES 929
PVT. LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

were not filed till 06.07.2009. Consequently, assessment orders were A
passed on 07.07.2009 confirming the tax demand as proposed in the
show cause notice. This assessment order was challenged before the
High Court in a writ petition3; which was disposed of by the court on
15.04.2010 permitting the assessee to file objection to the notice in VAT
305A dated 06.06.2009 within a period of six weeks from the date, on
B
the condition that the assessee deposited ` 20 lakhs within four weeks
from 15.04.2010. However, no deposit of the amount within the period
specified was made; the assessee also did not file its objections to the
show cause notice, as directed by the court. As a result, the revenue
issued proceedings dated 31.03.2011 confirming the demand of tax in a
sum of ` 1,86,80,708/- as arrived at by assessment order dated C
07.07.2009. The revenue alleged that the said proceeding was served
on one Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Director of the company on 31.03.2011
itself, which was duly acknowledged.
6. The revenue further contended that similarly for AYs 2009-10
and 2010-11, assessments under VAT Act were finalized raising a demand D
of ` 2,38,84,812/- and ` 1,21,83,884/-. Since the assessee did not pay
the tax due in the normal course, an urgent notice dated 14.06.2011 was
issued for payment of ` 5,50,58,758/- which included the arrears of tax
payable for the earlier period i.e., 2005-06 to 2008-09. It was claimed
that this urgent notice was served on Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, one of the
Directors of the assessee company on the same day. The arrears shown E
as due, were not paid, resulting in a demand notice in Form IV dated
12.09.2011 under the RR Act, before attaching the assessee’s properties.
Since there was no response, or compliance, an attachment order dated
03.02.2012 in Form V under the RR Act was issued. Even then the
assessee did not approach the revenue to seek any relief and instead F
remained silent.
7. The revenue also urged that it became aware that the assessee’s
banker, Canara Bank, had issued a notification on 14.08.2011 bringing
its immovable properties for sale in public auction to recover the loans
extended to it. Under provisions of Section 25 and 26 of VAT Act, the G
tax arrears have a priority over the dues of the bank. They provide for
first charge over the properties of the VAT dealer. Therefore, the revenue
requested the petitioner’s banker not to proceed with sale of the property,
pursuant to the notification dated 14.08.2011 and also requested it to
3
W.P. No. 27331/ 2009 H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A remit the sale proceeds towards the assessee’s tax arrears, in case sale
takes place in public auction. The revenue then approached the High
Court by filing a writ petition4 to declare the notification dated 14.08.2011
issued by the bank, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the VAT
Act. The assessee was arrayed as second respondent in that proceeding.
The revenue had specifically averred that the assessment orders were
B
served on the assessee and that those assessment orders had attained
finality, resulting in the demand of liability getting crystalized. The assessee
did not object to those averments by filing a counter affidavit denying
the service of assessment order. In that writ proceeding, after an initial
interim order, the High Court, on 13.02.2015, permitted the assessee’s
C banker to proceed with the auction in respect of its director’s properties,
but continued the order of restraint of not issuing confirmation of sale in
respect of the company’s property mentioned at serial Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
the notification dated 14.08.2011. As a result, the revenue issued revised
attachment notices in Form IV and V on 07.03.2015 and 27.04.2015
under the RR Act attaching the immovable property of the assessee
D
being land admeasuring 2,224.25 square yards and building standing
thereon. Even to the said revised attachment proceedings issued in Form
IV and V there was no response forthcoming from the assessee company.
It was in these circumstances that the revenue issued another notice of
attachment dated 20.02.2018 in Form V, in respect of the property and
E served copy of the said notice on Sri Pankaj Agarwal and Neeraj Agarwal
i.e., Directors of the assessee company.
8. It was claimed that the assessee then for the first time, submitted
representation dated 18.06.2018 for furnishing certified copies of
assessment orders. Similar representations renewing the said request
F are stated to have been made on 24.10.2018 and 05.03.2019. According
to the revenue none of the said representations, claimed that the
assessment orders passed by the revenue were not served and on the
other hand it claimed that “the assessment orders are not available
with us and our factory is closed long back and above orders are
not traceable in our records”. The revenue averred that the allegation
G of not furnishing of copies of assessment orders passed, was an after-
thought, to thwart the proceeding initiated by the respondent for recovery
of tax dues. Non-service of assessment orders was not raised in the
earlier two writ proceedings and this, it was contended by the revenue,
demonstrated absence of bonafides.
H 4
W.P. No. 25943/2011
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. v. NEERAJA PIPES 931
PVT. LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

9. The impugned order noticed that the VAT Act stipulates the A
manner and method of service of notices and orders on the assessee;
Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules5 (“the rules”) prescribes the
procedure thereunder. The court held that an order by the revenue to be
considered as validly served, would have to be only in the manner
prescribed under the Rules and that since the assessee is a company, it
B
was governed by Rule 64(1)(b) in terms of which any notice or an order
passed can be considered as validly served under any one of the modes,
namely - (i) if the same is personally served on the nominated person; or
(ii) it is left at the registered office of the person or person’s address for
service of notices under the Act; or (iii) it is left at or sent by registered
post to any office or place of business of that person in the State; and C
(iv) where it is returned unserved, if it is put on board in the office of
local chamber of commerce or trader’s association. It was held that so
far as the assessment order dated 31.03.2011 for AY 2005-06 to 2008-
09 were concerned, the material placed on record showed that the order
was served on the assessee, represented by its Director Mr. Pankaj
D
Agarwal, who was deponent to the affidavit in the writ petition. The
court held that the service of the order passed for AY 2005-06 to 2008-
09 could not be called in question; since the assessee did not question
the assessment order, it has attained finality.
10. So far as AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 are concerned, the revenue’s
contention with respect to the admission by the assessee in its pleadings E
in the previous writ petition was rejected:
5
“64. Mode of Service of orders and notices
(1) Unless otherwise provided in the Act, or these Rules, a notice or other document
required or authorized under the Act or these Rules to be served shall be considered as
sufficiently served,-
(a) on a person being an individual other than in a representative capacity if,- F
(i) it is personally served on that person ; or
(ii) it is left at the person’s usual or last known place of residence or office or business
in the State; or
(iii) it is sent by registered post to such place of residence, office or business, or to the
person’s usual or last known address in the State; or
(b) on any other person if,-
(i) it is personally served on the nominated person ; or
G
(ii) it is left at the registered office of the person or the person’s address for service of
notices under the Act; or (iii) it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place
of business of that person in the State; (iv) where it is returned unserved, if it is put on
board in the office of local chamber of commerce or traders association.
(2) The certificate of service signed by the person serving the notice shall be evidence
of the facts stated therein.” H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A “the said contention urged does not hold water, since the
challenge in the said Writ Petition filed by the respondent as
petitioner was in relation to a notification issued by the
petitioner’s banker bringing to auction the properties of the
petitioner for recovery of loans advanced to it wherein the
respondent, as petitioner, sought to claim priority over such
B
assets being a crown debt. The dispute in the said Writ Petition
is primarily between the respondent as petitioner and the bank.
Thus, the claim of the respondent in the counter affidavit that
the petitioner herein did not choose to file a counter affidavit
therein raising the said plea would not preclude the petitioner
C from taking the said plea in the present proceeding.”6
11. The impugned order also held that the revenue did not have
record evidencing the service of assessment order on the assessee for
AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 by any of the modes prescribed under Rule
64(1)(b). It was noted that Section 42 of the VAT Act mandates an
D assessee to maintain the record minimum for a period of six years from
the end of the year, however, the revenue in whom the power of revision
is vested, claimed that the record was not traceable even though it had
only been 10 years since the relevant period. It was held that if such
statement were to be accepted, it was not clear on what basis revised
notices in Form IV and V were issued on 07.03.2015 as well as notice
E of attachment in Form V dated 20.02.2018 under the RR Act, claiming
arrears of tax from the assessee for the above said period. Noting that
nothing prevented the revenue from issuing certified copies of the orders
pursuant to the request made by the assessee on 18.06.2018 (just about
four months after revised Form V notice was issued on 20.02.2018), the
F assessee’s stance is justified.
12. On the basis of this reasoning, the impugned judgment was
delivered. Since the revenue was unable to show how the service of
assessment orders for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, was effected and when,
the attachment notice issued in Form V dated 20.02.2018 invoking the
G RR Act for recovery of a sum of ` 5,59,58,758/- was set aside. The
court, however, clarified that it was open for the revenue to initiate
recovery proceedings afresh only to the extent of arrears of tax due for
the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 as crystalized under order dated 31.03.2011

6
H Paragraph 32 of impugned High Court judgment.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. v. NEERAJA PIPES 933
PVT. LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

in accordance with law, by excluding the tax arrears shown as due for A
the period 2009-10 and 2010-11.
Contentions of parties
13. The revenue contends that the impugned order is in error. Its
principal submission is that the assessee was an established concern,
and had, in the past, occasion to contest its liability, even in respect of B
the same assessments. Notice of this court is drawn to the previous writ
petition initiated by the assessee, whereby the court had remitted the
matter for fresh consideration, and permitted filing of objections, despite
which the assessee did not participate in the proceedings, leading to
fresh orders. Likewise, it was submitted that when a composite C
attachment order was made, and the revenue had gone to the court,
filing a writ petition, it had specifically stated the extent of the assessee’s
liabilities, which the latter did not dispute. It never alleged non-service of
orders, or that it was unaware of proceedings leading to those orders. In
these circumstances, its plea that it was not served with orders, could
not be entertained; even otherwise, that was not the subject matter of its D
representations. Having regard to all these factors, the assessee was
estopped from contending that the attachment orders were vitiated in
law.
14. Counsel for the assessee relied on the findings of the High
Court, and stated that the revenue’s arguments are meritless, with respect E
to service of assessment orders. It was submitted that Rule 64, relied on
by the High Court is unambiguous, as every assessee has a right to
expect service of assessment orders upon it, to enable it to seek appellate
or revisional remedies. Even otherwise the correctness of assessment
orders and their compliance with law, required service of orders, in terms F
of the two enactments. Without resorting to the precondition of such
notice, the revenue could not have sought recourse to the RR Act and
attached the assessee’s properties. Therefore, the findings in the
impugned order were justified and in accordance with law.
Analysis and conclusions G
15. The High Court’s reasoning is based entirely on the effect of
Rule 64 of the rules. There can be no doubt that 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; especially
so, when that order is appealable or subject to revision by higher
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A authorities. That is the substance of the requirement under Rule 64. The
High Court, in the present case, drew a distinction between two periods;
for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 it was held that the assessments could not be
called in question. So far as AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were concerned,
the court held that the attachment orders were invalid, since the
assessment orders were not served.
B
16. The findings of the High Court, on the facts would not normally
have required a second look by this court; however, the peculiar
circumstances of this case compel scrutiny. After the disposal of the
writ petition filed by the assessee (on 15.04.2010) concededly, it made
no attempt to file objections or even deposit the amounts the court had
C required it to. As a regular dealer, it had filed returns not only for AY
2005-06 to 2008-09 but also later periods (i.e., AY 2009-10 and 2010-
11). However, if its contentions were to be believed, it made no attempt
to ascertain the fate of its assessments for those periods. More
importantly, the assessee’s banker had attached and sought to bring to
D sale, its properties. At that stage, the revenue approached the High Court,
seeking to enforce its first charge, under provisions of the APGST Act
and the Telangana VAT Act; the assessee was a party (second
respondent) in those proceedings. In those proceedings, specifically, the
liabilities of the assessee were pleaded. It however did not deny those
averments, nor contended that the assessment orders were not served
E upon it. Further, it alleged that its representations seeking copies of
assessment orders were not replied to by the state. The revenue however,
pointed out to the High Court, that the representations never alleged that
assessment orders were not served and that the attachments were
therefore not compliant with provision of law.
F 17. In Amina Bi Kaskar (D) by LRs. v. Union of India & Ors.7
this court had occasion to deal with complaints of non-service of notice,
which led to forfeiture of property. The court held that the conduct of
the party is relevant, and in the facts of that case, denied relief:
“16. In the light of the aforementioned finding of fact recorded
G by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, we do not
consider it necessary to examine the question though
vehemently argued by Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants, namely, whether in a given case
service of the order on the appellants’ lawyer is proper or not
H 7
(2018) 16 SCC 266
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. v. NEERAJA PIPES 935
PVT. LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

and whether the service on the appellants’ minor daughter A
was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 22 of SAFEMA or not.
17. If the appellants had the knowledge of the order passed
against them and which they admit to have as per their own
admission mentioned above, pursuant to which they filed B
appeals, then in our opinion, so-called irregularity in the
manner of effecting the service of the order on them, etc. was
of no consequence and cannot be termed as illegal per se (if
found to exist though denied by the Revenue).”
In Sri Budhia Swain & Ors. v. Gopinath Deb & Ors.8 similarly, C
the court observed as follows:
“As already noted the appellants sought for review or recall
of the order from the O.E.A. Collector solely by alleging that
the notice which was required to be published in the locality
before settling the land in favour of the respondent No. 1 was D
not served in accordance with the manner prescribed by law.
The appellants did not plead ‘non-service of the notice’ but
raised objection only with regard to ‘the manner of service
of the notice’. The High court had called for and perused the
record of the O.E.A. Collector and noted that the notice was
issued on 15.12.1963 inviting public objection. The notice E
was available on record but some of its pages were missing.
The O.E.A. Collector had noted in his order dated 23.2.1966
as under :-
‘It is only due to missing of some pages of the proclamation-
including the last page over which the report of the process F
server was there, a scope was available to the objectors to
file this petition. Under the above circumstances, it is not
necessary to issue another proclamation and entertain
further objection since the case is being heard and going
to be finalised on 14.3.66.’ G
The O.E.A. Collector was satisfied of the notice having
been published. Assuming that the notice was not published
in the manner contemplated by law, it will at best be a case of

8
[1999] 2 SCR 1189: (1999) 4 SCC 396 H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A irregularity in the proceedings but certainly not a fact striking
at the very jurisdiction of the authority passing the order.
The Appellate Authority, i.e., the ADM has in his order
noted two other contentions raised by the appellants, viz., (i)
the application for settlement by the respondent No. 1 was
B not filed within the prescribed time, and (2) the application
should have been treated as an application for lease and
should not have been treated as a claim case.
None of the two pleas was raised by the appellants in
their pleadings. None of the two was urged before O.E.A.
C Collector. Therefore, there was no occasion to consider those
pleas. Still we may make it clear that none of the two pleas
could have been a ground for recalling the order which was
otherwise within the jurisdiction conferred on the O.E.A.
Collector...”

D 18. In the present case, arguendo if the assessee was unaware,
in the first instance regarding the issuance of assessment orders against
it, at least when the revenue filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 25943/2011)
complaining about Canara Bank’s proposal to auction the assessee’s
properties, it had impleaded the assessee too. In the pleadings, there
was a specific mention about the assessment orders, them having become
E final, and why those demands had to be given primacy as revenue dues,
over and above the bank’s dues. The assessee was served in those writ
proceedings; however, it did not dispute the revenue’s contention. This,
in the opinion of the court is a telling aspect, as it highlights the assessee’s
conduct in deliberately choosing to keep quiet, even when it could have
F raised a grievance.
19. Moreover, the assessee also did not dispute that it had not
received the copies of assessment orders, in those writ proceedings.
Further, it did not seek copies of the assessment orders, in the
representations addressed to the revenue after the second attachment
G order was issued, on 20.02.2018. In these circumstances, the assessee’s
contentions that the attachment orders were unenforceable, because
the assessment orders were not served on it, are untenable. The High
Court, with due respect, fell into error, in holding that since the subject
matter of the revenue’s writ petition (W.P. No. 25943/2011) was different,
the assessee could not be faulted for highlighting that it had not received
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. v. NEERAJA PIPES 937
PVT. LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

a copy of the assessment order. In fact, the entire premise of that writ A
petition was that the assessee owed tax dues, to the extent of
` 5,59,58,758/- and that the bank could not sell the assessee’s properties.
20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the revenue’s appeal
has to succeed. The impugned judgment and order are therefore, set
aside. As a result, the attachment notice in Form V dated 20.02.2018, is B
revived and it is open to the revenue to recover the dues owed, as per
the said notice. The present appeal is allowed. There shall be no order
on costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed. C
(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H