2021 (12) TMI 1001 - HC - GST

Provisional attachment of petitioner s bank account and immovable properties - taxable person as defined under Section 2(107) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court in WATERMELON MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX GST DELHI (EAST) ANR. 2020 (6) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that writs cannot be entertained as petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy before competent authority by filing objections under Rules 159(5) of the CGST Rules 2017. The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his objections under Section 159(5) of the CGST Rules 2017 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing provisional attachment of personal bank accounts and immovable properties, petitioner's tax liability under CGST Act, availability of alternative remedy under CGST Rules.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment addressed the challenge to an order directing the provisional attachment of the petitioner's personal bank accounts and immovable properties. The petitioner contended that they were not a 'taxable person' under Section 2(107) of the CGST Act and thus not liable to pay any tax under the said Act. The petitioner argued that there was no evidence implicating them in the alleged offense, and therefore, no prima facie case existed under Section 132 of the CGST Act.

The Court referred to a previous case, Watermelon Management Services Private Limited vs. The Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Delhi (East) & Anr., where it was held that writ petitions could not be entertained when there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioner. The alternative remedy in this case was to file objections under Section 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 before the competent authority.

In light of the precedent set by the Watermelon Management case, the High Court disposed of the present writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file objections under Section 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Court directed that if objections were filed within two weeks, the competent authority must decide on them within four weeks. The judgment concluded by stating that the rights and contentions of all parties were left open, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.