1.Mr.Rajkumar, who appears for the petitioner says that pursuant to the order dated 02.01.2017, the first respondent has revised the order dated 18.12.2016.
1.1.The learned counsel submits that the revised order was passed on 03.01.2017. As per the said order, the demand qua, tax was brought down from Rs.56,48,565/- to Rs.10,05,551/-.
1.2.I am informed by the learned counsel that the said amount has been deposited with the first respondent. A photocopy of the letter dated 03.01.2017, issued by the first respondent to the second respondent Bank has been placed on record.
2.Mr.Venkatesh, who appears for the first respondent, affirms the aforesaid position.
3.Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the second respondent should be directed to release the sum of Rs.56,48,565/- which is being held in trust by the said entity pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 02.01.2017.
4.In view of what is stated before me, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is, affirmed by Mr.Venkatesh, who appears for the first respondent, I see no difficulty in the second respondent complying with the communication dated 03.01.2017 addressed to it by the first respondent.
5.Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to release the sum of Rs.56,48,565/- to the petitioner in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances.
6.The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Consequently, the connected pending applications are also closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
13.02.2017 pri Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No Note: Issue order copy on 15.02.2017 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
pri To 1 The Assistant Commissioner(CT) Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai 600 031.
2 The Manager State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch No.110/1, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.
W.P.No.19 of 2017 And W.M.P.Nos.14, 15 and 3388 of 2017 13.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in