9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting the respondent authorities to immediately remove attachment of bank accounts of (1) Axis Bank, Bhavnagar, viz., Nos. (a) C/C A/c No.917030053366001, (b) CURRENT A/c No.917020055857122 and (c) Savings A/c No.200010100069386 of Mr. Manish Bansal, (2) IndusInd Bank, Bhavnagar, viz., (a) Savings A/c No.159825708079 of Mr. Manish Bansal, and (b) Term Deposit A/c No.300723646746 and (3) State Bank of India, Bhavnagar, viz., (a) 31638538591 and (b) 31595134117, and that is how, the said bank accounts may immediately be defreezed; [D] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to immediately remove attachment of goods being attached vide Form GST INC - 02 (Order of seizure) dated 12/10/2018 (the date of order is wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... threat and duress. Subsequently, by an affidavit dated 26.10.2018, the proprietor of the petitioner firm retracted the statement recorded by the first respondent. 2.1 By an order of seizure dated 12.10.2018 issued in Form GST INS-02, the first respondent attached the goods which according to him were found in excess on the factory premises of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent worked out the amount payable by the petitioner at Rs. 55,37,237/- and thereafter, on 22.10.2018, the following accounts of the petitioner viz.: Axis Bank Ltd., Bhavnagar, C/C A/c No.917030053366001, Current A/c No.917020055857122 and Savings A/c No.200010100069386 of Manish Bansal as well as M/s. IndusInd Bank, Bhavnagar A/c No.159 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the sections mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 83 of the GGST Act and hence, the orders of provisional attachment are bad in law. 3.1 It was submitted that the respondents have calculated the tax liability of the petitioner by making an addition of 100% of the goods and have, accordingly, computed twice as big a figure than warranted even if the calculation taken by the respondents is otherwise taken to be true. It was submitted that when the petitioner had already paid Rs. 17,00,000/- on the date when the search came to be conducted, there was no reason for the respondents to believe that the petitioner would not pay its tax dues after proper assessment is carried out and, hence, there was no warrant for passing the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n computed towards the tax liability. 6. From the facts as emerging on record, it appears that the tax liability of the petitioner in terms of the goods seized as well as the transporter's statement, the same would not exceed Rs. 13,00,000/-. The petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- with the respondent. Insofar as the amount assessed towards the penalty is concerned, in the absence of any proceedings having been undertaken under the provisions of the GGST Act as well as any penalty having been imposed, in the opinion of this court, the respondent authorities were not justified in resorting to such a drastic coercive measure of attachment of the bank accounts and seizure of goods, which results in bringing the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it was necessary to resort to provisional attachment to protect the interest of the Government revenue. The impugned order of attachment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is clarified that the fact that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- during the course of the search proceedings shall not be construed as an admission of such dues on the part of the petitioner. 8. Before parting, the court deems it fit to caution the concerned authorities that while exercising powers under section 83 of The GGST Act, the authorities should try to balance the interest of the Government revenue as well as a dealer to ensure that while the interest of the revenue is safeguarded, the dealer is also in a position to continue with his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, viz., Nos. (a) C/C A/c No.917030053366001, (b) CURRENT A/c No.917020055857122 and (c) Savings A/c No.200010100069386 of Mr. Manish Bansal, (2) IndusInd Bank, Bhavnagar, viz., (a) Savings A/c No.159825708079 of Mr. Manish Bansal, and (b) Term Deposit A/c No.300723646746 and (3) State Bank of India, Bhavnagar, viz., (a) 31638538591 and (b) 31595134117, is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned seizure order dated 12.11.2018 made under rule 139(2) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Annexure "C" to the petition) is also hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the above mentioned bank accounts as well as the seized goods of the petitioner. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
