9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctness of the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad, respondent no. 1 whereby and whereunder the current account of the petitioner i.e. A/C No. 355401001796 maintained with ICICI Bank situate at 4, Part A, Gaur Global Village Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad-201009 has been provisionally attached exercising powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule- 159 (1) of the CGST Rules '2017'. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 initiated an investigation against 3 persons including the husband of the petitioner Shri Rajiv Sharma for availing and passing on wrong Input Tax Credit by creating various firms without supply of goods. During the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in 2022 (64)GSTL 150 (All) Varun Gupta vs. Union of India and upon order dated 29.08.2022 passed in Writ Tax No.858 of 2022 (Varun Gupta vs. Union of India and another to buttress the point that attachment order in the absence of notice is vitiated. 5. Per contra, Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue/Respondent no. 1 submits that during investigation it has been found that the PAN No. AEXPL 2406 in the name of the petitioner has been utilized for GST registration against four firms in the State of UP and the Union Territory of Delhi which have been found to be inactive. Certain queries have been raised by the department against the petitioner in that regard and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm GST DRC-23, if he is of the view that property is required to be released from attachment. 7. Clearly the petitioner has approached this Court without availing the aforementioned remedy available under the law. We also note that the Bank account of the petitioner has remained under attachment since long once under order dated 02.04.2022 and thereafter under the order dated 21.04.2023 but partially the petitioner herself is to be blamed for not taking recourse to Rule 159 (5) of the Rules early. Be that as it may. Since the bank account of the petitioner has remained attached since April 2022 we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 1 within two weeks from today, under Rule 159 (5) by filing objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
