Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon
Home
2022 (3) TMI 89 - HC - GSTLegality of search and seizure conducted in the office premises of the appellant - seeking to return the sum which according to the appellant was forcibly obtained from the appellant and to the same effect an interim order was also sought for - HELD THAT - The appellant cannot question an order of seizure by way of a writ petition nor a summon could be challenged to the writ petition. Once we steer clear of the legal principle we take note of the other submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that when summons dated 14.11.2021 was signed the appellant was to appear at the Office of the appellant itself on 01.11.2021. One fails to understand as to how the summon dated 14.11.2021 could have been issued and directed the appellant to appear on 01.11.2021. It is not clear whether there is a typographical error. Be that as it may the appellant sent a representation seeking adjournment of the hearing on health grounds. After stating out certain other factual details the appellant stated that he retracts statement recorded by the Officers as well as the payment of Rs. 47, 99, 184/- which was shown to be made voluntarily by the appellant in form DRC-03. The learned writ court had directed the respondent to consider the said representation wherein there was retraction regarding the money paid. No useful purpose would be served by directing the authority to consider the representation made on 30.12.2021 since the show cause notice is yet to be issued by the concerned respondent/authority. The question whether the payment of Rs. 47, 99, 184/- was voluntarily made or not also is a factual matter to be decided by the adjudicating authority and not in a writ petition. Admittedly the payment has been made through banking channels in the statutory form presumably by way of e-payment. Therefore the onus is on the appellant to establish that the payment was extracted by undue force and threat etc. - the concerned respondent shall expeditiously take steps in issuing show cause notice and giving reasonable time concerned to the appellant to reply the same and afford personal hearing to the appellant and thereafter adjudicate the case on merits in accordance with law and pass an order of adjudication. Application disposed off.
|