Page 88 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4
P. 88

598                           GST LAW TIMES                      [ Vol. 34
                                                 issued to a post office, banking company or an insurer, it shall not be
                                                 necessary for any pass book, deposit receipt, policy or any other doc-
                                                 ument to be produced for the purpose of any entry, endorsement or
                                                 the like being made before payment is made, notwithstanding any
                                                 rule, practice or requirement to the contrary.”
                                            5.  Under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 226, the Assessing Officer
                                            has power to issue notice requiring any person from whom money is due or
                                            may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subse-
                                            quently hold  money for or on account of  the assessee to pay to the  As-
                                            sessing Officer forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or
                                            within the specified time, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the
                                            amount due by the assessee in respect of the arrears or the whole of the
                                            money when it is  equal to or less than the amount of arrears. In other
                                            words, in the  process of  seeking coercive  recovery, the Assessing Officer
                                            would have power to recover the same to the extent of the arrears of the as-
                                            sessee from any person from whom money is due or may become due to
                                            the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for
                                            or on account of the assessee. This power is essentially in the nature of gar-
                                            nishee order requiring the debtor of the assessee to make direct payment to
                                            the Assessing Officer of the  arrears of tax instead of paying over such
                                            amount to the assessee. In essence, therefore, this power would be available
                                            when there is person from whom money is due or may become due to the
                                            assessee or there is a person who holds or may subsequently hold for or on
                                            account of the assessee any money.
                                            6.  In this case, admittedly, all the three bank accounts were in the nature of either
                                            the cash credit account or term loan account. In other words, the accounts were
                                            opened to enable the assessee to borrow the money from the bank for the purpose of
                                            its business. Any money. therefore, that the bank may make available to the assessee
                                            would necessarily be in the nature of a loan or a cash credit facility, in either case,
                                            would be in the nature of borrowing by the assessee from the bank. The bank and
                                            the assessee. therefore, do not have the debtor-creditor relationship.
                                            7.  Somewhat similar situation arose  before the Learned Single Judge of
                                            Madras High Court in case of K.M. Adam v. ITO [1958] 33 ITR 26. The As-
                                            sessing Officer desired to invoke powers analogous to Section 226(3) of the
                                            Act for recovery of the tax dues of the assessee from the overdraft account
                                            that the assessee maintained with its bank. In such background, referring to
                                            similar provisions contained  in Section 46  of the Income-tax Act, 1922,  it
                                            was observed as under :
                                                 ‘It will be seen that this provision is analogous to an attachment of a
                                                 debt or what is commonly terms a garnishee summons. The classes of
                                                 persons to whom such notice could be served are two: (i) any person
                                                 from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee; and (2)
                                                 any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on ac-
                                                 count of the assessee. The question which arises for consideration in
                                                 the present case is, as to whether a bank, which has afforded over-
                                                 draft facilities to its customer, holds the amount, specified as that up
                                                 to which the customer may draw as either “a debtor” of the customer
                                                 or holds that money on behalf of or on account of the customer.’
                                            8.  This decision was followed by the Learned Single Judge of Bombay
                                            High Court in reported judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Jugal
                                            Kishore Das v. Union of India [W.P. No. 22899 of 2013, dated 8-10-2013]. In
                                            the said case, the Assessing Officer had tried to recover the tax dues of the
                                            assessee in exercise of powers under Section 226(3) of the Act by attaching
                                            the cash credit account of the assessee. Following the decision of Madras
                                            High Court in case of K.M. Adam {supra), it was observed as under :
                                                 “In view of the above, this Court does not find that the action on the
                                                 part of the respondents in passing the order of attachment of Cash
                                                          GST LAW TIMES      26th March 2020      184
   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93