- (1.) The petitioner, which is a company, is aggrieved against the issue of summons for attendance for answering a claim for sales tax arrears when according to the petitioner, the company was not defaulter but the defaulter company was M/s. Hindustan Max GB Limited. The latter was a joint venture company with a Government company M/s. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited having its office and factory at Pune. The summons was issued by the Collector, 2nd Grade, Gurgaon purporting to effect recovery of sales tax arrears assessed against the defaulting company i.e. M/s. Hindustan Max GB Limited. At the time when the writ petition was filed, the action of the Collector was for recovery of Rs. 182 crores and odd as sales tax that had been determined by the Assessing Authority at Pune in respect of which an appeal appears to have been filed to the Sales Tax Tribunal in Maharashtra State. The assessment appears to have been quashed and fresh proceedings have been undertaken. What remains as recoverable without any further dispute is an amount to the tune of about of Rs. 4 crores and odd.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has two contentions viz; (i) the recovery certificate issued pursuant to the order of the assessing officer is no longer in force and therefore, the action taken by the Tehsildar issuing summons cannot any longer avail and (ii) the petitioner company is not in any way connected to the defaulting company and they cannot be asked to respond to any of their summons.
(3.) As regards the first contention regarding the scaling down of liability for defaulting company, it is obvious that any action for recovery till a fresh assessment is made shall be possible only for the uncontested claims of Rs. 4 crores and odd. If any action were to be taken pursuant to the said sum, it could be against the defaulting company. The summons which is now issued is in the name of the defaulting company but stated to be care of the petitioner company. If there is no person belonging to the defaulting company who is available for response with the petitioner company, the matter ought to rest there. The petitioner company ought not to feel threatened by the only fact that the defaulting company has been stated to be care of the petitioner company. It is open to them to ignore the same in the manner that is possible. This ought not to be understood as forestalling any attempt of the State to prove that the petitioner company itself is merely a shell company to protect the assets of the defaulting company. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would submit that so far as no precipitate action for attachment has been undertaken. Summons were issued only to elicit information about the assets available at the address of the petitioner company. The State shall be entitled to undertake such course for eliciting every information for large revenue that is due to it. This order should, therefore, be taken as giving a protection to the petitioner company to the effect that in the ultimate event of attachment of any property which is now claimed by the petitioner to belong to it, it shall have its recourse to thwart any attachment or recoveries against the assets of the petitioner company that have no bearing to the assets of the defaulting company. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.;