DINAR TARCAR RESOURCES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MAN. DIRECTOR, DINAR TARCAR AND ANR., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI AND 2 ORS.,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue relating to the freezing or attachment of the bank account stood suitably redressed with the revocation of the order and the commitment by the revenue to upload the relevant order promptly. Regarding the adjustment of refund amounts, the Court advised the petitioners to approach the authorities with their version of the matter, expressing confidence that any further adjustments would be made after due consideration. The petition was disposed of on these terms, with no order as to costs. The principle derived is that communication gaps leading to coercive action can be rectified by prompt corrective measures and by allowing the assessee to present their case before further adverse actions are taken.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, Dinar Tarcar Resources (India) Private Limited and Shri Dinnar Tarcar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the freezing of their bank accounts and the adjustment of their tax refunds. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji, informed the court that the order freezing the bank accounts had been revoked with immediate effect. The revenue explained that the freezing occurred due to a communication gap in uploading an order dated March 29, 2017, which indicated no tax dues for Assessment Year 2012-13, leading to a lack of response from the petitioners to a notice before coercive action was taken. The revenue committed to uploading the said order on the website at the earliest.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the freezing of the petitioners' bank accounts was justified, and if not, what relief should be granted? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the revenue to take coercive action). Assessee's contention: The bank accounts were frozen without proper justification, leading to coercive action. The petitioners sought the revocation of the freezing order. Revenue's contention: The freezing order was issued due to a communication gap and non-response to a notice. However, the order has now been revoked, and the relevant order indicating no tax dues will be uploaded promptly. 2. Whether the adjustment of the refund amount due to the petitioners was justified, and if not, what relief should be granted? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the adjustment of refunds). Assessee's contention: Further refunds due to the petitioners are also being adjusted based on miscommunication. Revenue's contention: The court suggested that the petitioners can write to the authorities explaining their version, and any further adjustments will be made after due consideration.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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. Date:- 11 th February, 2020 ORAL ORDER (Per M.S. Sonak, J.)
Learned counsel for the parties state that there is no difficulty for this Bench to take up this matter. 2. Heard Mr. Vaze, for the petitioners and Ms. Razaq, for the respondent. 3. Ms. Razaq states that the order to freeze the bank account of the petitioners 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 bank informing the bank that the attachment of the bank account made vide the impugned notice stands revoked immediately in case of Dinar Tarcar Resources (India) Private Limited and in case of Shri Dinnar Tarcar as well. 4. Ms. Razaq explains the circumstances under which the freezing order came to be issued. She points out that though, the order dated 29.03.2017 at Exhibit B, page 20 of the paper book makes it clear that no tax dues are payable by the petitioners for the Assessment Year 2012-13, there was some communication gap in the matter of uploading 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 was issued to the petitioners before any coercive action could be taken. Since, there was no response, such coercive action was taken. She points 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 this department uploads the orders at the earliest. Ms. Razaq, on instructions, states that the Assessing Officer, in the present case, will upload 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. Razaq states that otherwise also, the process of digitization is on and these are
3 WP No.120/2020 dtd. 11.02.20 probably instances of some teething troubles which will also be sorted out at the earliest. 6. According to us, with the aforesaid, the issue relating to freezing or attachment of the bank account stands suitably redressed. 7. The second issue relates to adjustment of the refund amount otherwise due and payable to the petitioners. For the present, the adjustment is to the tune of hardly Rs.27,250/-. Mr. Vaze however points out that there are further refunds due to the petitioners and the same are also being adjusted based upon such mis-communication. 8. According to us, the petitioners, can immediately write to the authorities explaining their version of the matter and we are quite sure that any further action in the matter of adjustments will be taken after due 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. ss
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Talasethi Sanmukharao vs. Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S Ramamani Behera (Trade Name S.V.Enterprises) Bhubaneswar vs. Addl Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Prasanta Kumar Biswal vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Dibyanee Agency., Keonjhar. vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Anjanarani Jena vs. The Commissioner,CGST, Cx And CustomsOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
