TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference at this stage. However, we grant the petitioner a week s time to approach the Additional Director General under the said provision and if such an approach is made, a reasoned order shall be passed after extending an opportunity of hearing. We find no reason, nor we are shown any, as to why we should not take the same view as taken in the case of Jaychem Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and ask the Petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 159 (5) of the GST Rules for revocation of the attachment - The contention of the Petitioner that the authority will not be able to decide the issue of jurisdiction is not correct as if the Petitioner demonstrates that the action taken under Section 83 of the Act is not proper in law and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No.2 to 4 being officers appointed under MGST Act, 2017 will not have jurisdiction over the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that this being the issue of jurisdiction, the Petitioner is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Jaychem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Director General, Nagpur Zonal Unit and Ors. Writ Petition No. 2583 of 2021 dated 8 July, 2021 , to contend that the Petitioner should first take recourse to Rule 159(5) of the Maharashtra GST Rules to meet the case of the Petitioner on merits. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaychem E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner to satisfy the Additional Director General that for the reasons urged, the property ought to be released from attachment by making an appropriate order in Form GST DRC-23. The position as to whether the impugned order, in fact, seeks to protect the interest of the revenue or is otherwise, including the balance in the current account as submitted by the petitioner, would require a factual examination and determination. Thus, it is all the more necessary that the petitioner exhausts the remedy provided by sub-rule (5) of Rule 159 of the said Rules. Should the Additional Director General refuse to release the property from attachment, a reasoned order is required to be passed and such order could be subjected to a challenge before the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
