TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ume, for the moment, that, since investigations are on against the taxable person, and therefore, proceedings are pending under Section 67 of the Act, there is nothing placed on record to show that there was material available with the respondent, linking the petitioner to purported fake invoices. In other words, in the absence of such material, the impugned action concerning provisional attachment of the petitioner s bank accounts, which is otherwise a draconian step, was unsustainable. The impugned provisional attachment orders dated 07.12.2020. are quashed - Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 2348/2021 & CM No. 6860/2021 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnum qua the financial year (in short FY ) 2019-2020. 2.2. The respondent, based on the information received, that Milkfood Ltd. was availing Input Tax Credit (in short ITC ) against fake/ineligible invoices, commenced investigation, under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short the Act ), against Milkfood Ltd. 2.3. The respondent claims that, the statement of the persons, who controlled entities, which enabled Milkfood Ltd. to claim ITC, were recorded in the course of the investigation. It is in this connection, the respondent claims, that the voluntary statement of the petitioner was recorded on 03.12.2020. 2.4. The petitioner, as per the respondent, in her statement made to the concerned officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the matter, in the counter-affidavit. Mr. Singh states that the objections were disposed of vide order dated 19.04.2021. (ii) Investigations, commenced under Section 67 of the Act, against the Milkfood Ltd., were still on. (iii) Milkfood Limited has availed ITC credit. to the extent of approximately ₹ 85 crores, based on fake invoices. The respondent had arrested persons, who controlled the entities which furnished fake invoices to Milkfood Ltd. Coercive proceedings were also intended to be triggered against the directors/employees of Milkfood Ltd. (iv) The persons, connected to the suppliers and the directors/employees of Milkfood Ltd., had approached the concerned courts for grant of bail. In those proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sethi says that, the respondent was also required to form an opinion, before taking recourse to Section 83 of the Act, that attachment of the petitioner s bank account was necessary for the purpose of protecting the interest of the revenue. 4.2. Mr. Sethi says that the principles enunciated in Radha Krishan Industries Case, squarely apply to the instant case. In this context, Mr. Sethi relies, in particular, on paragraphs 41 and 72(iv) (v) of the judgement rendered in Radha Krishan Industries Case. Analysis and Reasons: - 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.1. According to us, the submission advanced by Mr. Singh, that the instant petition. under Article 226 of the Constitution, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2. As indicated above, we are told that the order rejecting the petitioner s objections under Rule 159(5) was passed on 19.04.2021. This order has not been placed on record. We are also not told of the date on which the objections were filed. On being queried, Mr. Singh concedes that the order, passed under the aforestated Rule, on 19.04.2021, is not appealable. 5.3. Subsection 1 of Section 83 of the Act 2 in no uncertain terms states that provisional attachment can be ordered only qua property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person. Furthermore, the definition of the taxable person , as set out in Section 2(107) of the Act 3 , provides that only that person can be a taxable person, who is registered or liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement, that she was paid ₹ 1.50 crores in the FY 2019-2020 for rendering services in her capacity as a mentor/advisor to Milkfood Ltd. Therefore, even if we assume, for the moment, that, since investigations are on against the taxable person, and therefore, proceedings are pending under Section 67 of the Act, there is nothing placed on record to show that there was material available with the respondent, linking the petitioner to purported fake invoices. In other words, in the absence of such material, the impugned action concerning provisional attachment of the petitioner s bank accounts, which is otherwise a draconian step, was unsustainable. In the zeal to protect the interest of the revenue, the respondent cannot attach any a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
