Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1125 - HC - GSTProvisional attachment of cash-credit facility - Section 83 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is found from the record of the case that even the petitioner has been paying GST from the said cash-credit account - Be that as it may, it is held by this Court that cashcredit facility is not a debt and therefore, it cannot be made attachable. This Court is bound by the above-stated precedent. Efficacious and speedy remedy in the statute - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether relief under writ jurisdiction should be granted in a case where there is alternative statutory remedy was called upon for determination before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation Section 13 and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2004 (4) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT], it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act that borrowers cannot be left remediless in this case they have been wronged by a secured creditor, bank or financial institutions and that borrowers have a right to approach the DRT after measures are taken against the borrower under Section 13 (4) of the Act and the same provides reasonable protection to the borrower - The Supreme Court ultimately held that the High Court will not ordinarily entertained a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of public money and the dues of the bank and other financial institutions. In the instant case, it relates to recovery of GST. Subsection 5 of Section 159 clearly gives adequate power to the petitioner to file objection for releasing the bank account or, in the instant case cash-credit facility - In view of such circumstances, when there is efficacious relief in the statute itself, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should adopt such efficacious relief and this Court is not inclined to afford any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.
|