TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner has reasons to believe that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or the stock of goods in hand or has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under the CGST Act or has indulged in contravention of any of the provisions of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder to evade tax under the CGST Act, he may authorize in writing inspection of any place of business of the taxable person - A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of section 67 and section 83 of the CGST Act would indicate that the proper officer must have reasons to believe that the taxable person has suppressed any taxable transaction to evade payment of tax. It is not necessary for us at this stage to delve into the meaning of the expression reasons to believe employed in section 67 which has its own connotation in fiscal statutes. Suffice it to say, requirement of section 67(1)(a) is that the proper officer should have reasons to believe that the taxable person has suppressed any taxable transaction to evade payment of tax. It is quite clear that petitioner had disclosed the details of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner maintained with respondent No.3. 3. The matter was heard on 17th December, 2020 on the interim prayer on which date Mr. Mishra had also produced the record in original which we have perused. 4. Before adverting to the impugned order we may briefly indicate that the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of carbonated fruit drinks, such as, Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big Lemon and similar other products. Petitioner has been manufacturing such fruit juice based drinks since December, 2017 having more than 5% juice content in apple drink and 2.5% in respect of lemon drink. Petitioner has been classifying such goods under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and specified at Serial No.48 under Schedule-II as fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks of the Central Government Notification dated 28th June, 2017 taxable at the rate of 12%. According to the petitioner, the above classification is in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Parle Agro (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum, 2017(352) ELT 113 and also of the Larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said person. As per information available with the department, it has come to my notice that the said person has following accounts in your bank having account no as mentioned against them: Sr.No. Account No. Account Holder s Name 1 162705000112 M/s AJE India Pvt. Ltd. 2 162705000060 M/s AJE India Pvt. Ltd. 3 162705000061 M/s AJE IndiaPvt. Ltd. In order to protect the interests of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 83 of the Act, I Manpreet Arora, Commissioner CGST CX, Raigad hereby provisionally attach the aforesaid accounts. No debit shall be allowed to be made from the said account or any other account operated by the aforesaid person on the same PAN without the prior permission of this department. sd/-illegible 19.11.2020. (Manpreet Arora) Commissioner, CGST CX, Raigad. 8. Petitioner filed objection before respondent No.2 on 25th November, 2020 against suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and not on the merit of the classification. 15. Adverting to the impugned order as extracted above, we find that according to respondent No.2 proceedings have been launched against the taxable person i.e. the petitioner under section 67 of the CGST Act to determine the tax or any other amount due from the petitioner. From the information available it had come to the notice of respondent No.2 that petitioner has three bank accounts as mentioned therein. In order to protect the interest of revenue and exercising power conferred under section 83 of the CGST Act, respondent No.2 provisionally attached the aforesaid bank accounts. Respondent No.3 i.e. the Branch Manager of the ICICI Bank was requested that no debit should be allowed to be made from the said accounts or any other accounts operated by the petitioner without the prior permission of the department. 16. Since provisional attachment of bank accounts have been made under section 83 of the CGST Act, the same may be examined. For ready reference section 83 is quoted hereunder:- Section 83- Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases- (1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of this Act or the rules made thereunder to evade tax under this Act; or * * * * * * he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to inspect any places of business of the taxable person or the persons engaged in the business of transporting goods or the owner or the operator of warehouse or godown or any other place. 20. From an analysis of the above it is seen that where the proper officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner has reasons to believe that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or the stock of goods in hand or has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under the CGST Act or has indulged in contravention of any of the provisions of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder to evade tax under the CGST Act, he may authorize in writing inspection of any place of business of the taxable person. 21. A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of section 67 and section 83 of the CGST Act would indicate that the proper officer must have reasons to believe that the taxable person has suppressed any taxable transaction to evade payment of tax. It is not necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement has been made by the Commissioner that the department has filed an appeal against the aforesaid decision of Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) and therefore, the said order had lost relevancy. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to such a view taken by the Commissioner; besides being devoid of any particulars, it shows complete disregard to an order of an appellate authority. But the moot point is whether on the basis of the above facts can it be said to be a case of suppression of a taxable transaction by the petitioner or a case of contravention of any of the provisions of the CGST Act to evade payment of tax? The answer to this, in our prima facie view, would have to be in the negative. 25. We have perused the original record produced by Mr. Mishra which discusses about investigation under section 67 and therefore, the need to take action under section 83. Whether recourse to section 83 is warranted at this stage has not been dealt with in the record. Merely because there is a proceeding under section 67 would not mean that recourse to such a drastic power as under section 83 would be an automatic consequence, more so when petitioner has cooperated with the investigation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
