TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said show-cause notice, it is quite clear that when the statutory function is being undertaken by respondent authority and when there are no allegation of specific mala fides the function of the authority, in view of settled position of law, cannot be usurped by the High Court in exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction when a satisfaction is arrived at by an authority that interest of revenue deserves to be protected hence we are of the clear opinion that in the absence of any material or patent illegality such satisfaction cannot be disturbed or substituted for the sake of substitution and we have satisfied ourselves that background of fact is such where the process cannot be intercepted when it has already commenced. That be so, no case is made out to call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are few judgements by Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction as to whether High Court can usurp the discretion of an authority or not - In case of D.N.Jeevaraj versus Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others [ 2015 (11) TMI 1798 - SUPREME COURT ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has propou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a show-cause notice under Section 73 or Section 74 the Act and while taking steps of attachment the grey area which has been indicated by the petitioner the Revenue or the authority concerned needs to apply its mind before the power is sought to be exercised . Now if these observations are taken note of including paragraphs 44 and 47 of the said decision, it is opined that the background of present facts on hand is such where this decision is of no assistance to the petitioner and, in view of the fact that a detailed circumstance which are pointed out by an respondent authority in its affidavit-in-reply as mentioned hereinbefore including the detail show-cause notice and the steps which are taken under Section 74 of the Act, as indicated above, i.e. on 15.03.2023 as well as 16.03.2023, exercising extraordinary equitable jurisdiction is refrained. On being conscious about the well defined proposition on exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction propounded by catena of decisions hence keeping the same in mind, the satisfaction which has been arrived at while initiating step against the petitioner, is not diluted/substituted. This is not a fit case in which we may exercise our extra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to submit copy of GST payment along with all necessary details of inward and outward supplies particulars including the documents in the form of LR, Ledger etc. The petitioner appeared before the authority on 09.09.2019 and submitted all necessary documents in response to the said summons. [2.1] It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent authority has issued another summon on 03.01.2022 under Section 70(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as to the CGST Act ) and also under Section 70(1) of the GST Act, 2017 and again the petitioner was directed to produce books of account for the period of 01.07.2017 to till date. The petitioner explained the inability to produce the books in response to the said summons for the period from 17.08.2017 to 18.09.2019 since the said particulars are in the custody of CGST right from 10.09.2019 and rest of the information the petitioner provided. On such further particulars being provided, the respondent authority on 08.03.2022 instructed the petitioner to submit further documents, specific reasons and details as to why the petitioner wrongly claimed input tax credit ( ITC for short) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to borrow the money from the bank for the purpose of its routine business. It has further been contended that the said order impugned is passed without proper application of mind and further is not sustainable in view of the fact that as on the date of provisional attachment, there were no proceedings pending under any provision of the Act. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate has further contended that the impugned orders is cryptic in nature and is passed merely on the assumption especially neither any assessment is framed nor any demand has been raised in accordance with the scheme of the Act and as such attaching the Bank Accounts in this situation is impermissible and as such deserves to be quashed. [4.1] Mr. Joshi, learned advocate has further submitted that under the scheme of the Act, there are two prerequisites for recovering any amount of tax, interest and penalty. Firstly, framing of assessment or reassessment, and secondly, the issuance of demand notice. None of the two conditions are fulfilled in the present case and as such, such a drastic measure under Section 83 of the CGST Act could not have been resorted. Every authority is under an obligation to scrupulously app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the amendment if the proceedings under the CGST Act carried out by an authority and if the proceedings are pending in that eventuality, the respondent has always got a power to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the CGST Act. As such, by referring to the said amended provision, it has been submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner are of no assistance. [5.2] Ms. Mehta, learned advocate as well as Mr. Gupta, learned Assistant Government Pleader in chorus have also submitted that the authority has framed the satisfactory note which was prepared on the basis of material which was made available with the authority and supplied by the petitioner and from that certain factual details which have been gathered has led the authority to initiate steps for the purpose of securing the interest of revenue and to substantiate, the learned advocates have referred to and relied upon relevant paragraph which is incorporated in the detailed affidavit-in-reply, which has been affirmed on 27.09.2022. [5.3] Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has submitted further affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-I, Enforcemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings are already now set in motion against the petitioner. Hence, the learned advocates for the revenue have objected to the petition and requested to dismiss the same with appropriate cost in view of the background of peculiar circumstances prevailing on record. The subjective satisfaction which has been arrived at by an authority cannot be requested to be set at naught in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the absence of any mala fide in the petition since there is no an averment worth the name with respect to any such mala fides against the petition nor any bias and when that be so the authority which is exercising statutory function such discretion of an authority cannot be usurped by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such has earnestly requested that when the volume of irregularities found are such which necessitated the authority to initiate action no interference warranted in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction and has requested to dismiss the petition. [6] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, we perused that the authority has come to a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory authority and render a decision. In the present case, the High Court has virtually taken over the function of the BDA by requiring it to take action against Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj. Clause 10 of the lease-cum-sale agreement gives discretion to the BDA to take action against the lessee in the event of a default in payment of rent or committing breach of the conditions of the leasecum- sale agreement or the provisions of law.[8] This will, of course, require a notice being given to the alleged defaulter followed by a hearing and then a decision in the matter. By taking over the functions of the BDA in this regard, the High Court has given a complete go-bye to the procedural requirements and has mandated a particular course of action to be taken by the BDA. It is quite possible that if the BDA is allowed to exercise its discretion it may not necessarily direct forfeiture of the lease but that was sought to be pre- empted by the direction given by the High Court which, in our opinion, acted beyond its jurisdiction in this regard. 43. To this we may add that if a court is of the opinion that a statutory authority cannot take an independent or impartial decision due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24DDNPR1191A1ZO GURUKRUPA TRADERS 9 24CAOPC1073P1ZH M M ENTERPRISE 10 24EAZPB6435H1ZE MAHAVIR ENTERPRIS 11 24DCRPM0355Q2ZX NAKSH TRADING 12 24DCJPR4454M1Z1 ORANGE SALES AGENCY 13 24BVNPK2004B1Z8 R. V. TRADERS 14 24AYNPJ4123G2ZL ROLEX ENTERPRISE 15 24BKRPM6978H1ZD S K ENTERPRISES 16 24EEZPB4071P1ZT S M TRADING 17 24ACKPZ2060K1Z9 SHIV ENTERPRISE 18 24DJOPR3821J1ZU VR TRADERS 8.2. From above-mentioned table, it appears that the quantum of purchases from the above-mentioned 18 firms is a tune of Rs.09,81,78685/- (Nine Crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etailed satisfactory note was prepared and supplied to the Petitioner at the time of attaching the bank accounts and therefore the action of the Respondent authority is just and proper and if the attachment may be removed by this Hon'ble Court, the Government may incur a huge loss. For the sake of the interest of the government revenue the action which was taken under Section 83 of the Act is after satisfying all the conditions as per Section 83 of the Act and therefore the Order which was passed under Section 83 was within the jurisdiction of the Respondent authority and the action taken by the Respondent authority are just and proper. Based on the prima facie materials on the record, this Hon'ble Court may dismiss the petition at the stage where the proceedings are pending before the authority. [9] The aforesaid particulars which are provided in the affidavit-in-reply and gone undenied cannot be ignored by the Court and when the substantial justice is pitted against technical consideration, the Court would like to give predominance to the substantial justice. Hence, when the authority is out to take a step in the interest of revenue and to protect the same, this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l situation fits in with a fact-situation of the decision on which reliance is placed, as it has to be ascertained by analysing all the material facts and the issues involved in the case and argued on both sides. A judgment may not be followed in a given case if it has some distinguishing features. A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference to the precedential value of a decision. A judgment of the Court is not to be read as a statute, as it is to be remembered that judicial utterances have been made in setting of the facts of a particular case. One additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon a decision is not proper. (Vide: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38; Govt. of Karnataka Ors. v. Gowramma Ors., AIR 2008 SC 863; and State of Haryana Anr. v. Dharam Singh Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 340) [12] Now coming to the decision which is in the case of Vinodkumar Murlidhar Chechani Proprietor of M/s Chechani Trading Co. (supra) cited by Mr. Joshi, learned advocate, we may observe that it is clearly mentioned in middle o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers in Section 83 CGST Act and the said chapters include the proceedings under Section 70 of the Act and as such in view of the same if the proceedings under the Central Goods and Service Tax carried out by an authority and if said proceeding is pending before any authority in that case the respondent authority has got power to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the CGST Act and this stand has gone uncontroverted and as such we are of the clear opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner to call for any interference. [15] At this stage, Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned advocate has successfully tried to assist the Court by referring to the decision in the case of Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan (supra) wherein in paragraphs 56 and 57 the Hon'ble Court has already opined on the issue of delegation of powers. However, here in the present case on hand, the background of facts are such which are not controverted, as indicated above, we are of the opinion that irrespective of aforesaid issue tried to be canvassed by Mr. Joshi, learned advocate, facts are such wherein in the absence of any specific mala fides of any nature, we are not inclined to intercept the process initiat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
