TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept mentioning that in order to protect the interest of the revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred U/s 83 of the Act the said order was issued. Needles to emphasize that reasons are live-nerve of any order of the public authority, without which the effected party cannot effectively oppose and submit his stand. Thus, in essence the reason given by this Court for passing interim order holds good even in the main writ petition also. The averments in the counter and passing of the assessment order will not improve the case of respondents in the main writ petition to uphold the provisional attachment order passed by the 4th respondent. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent are hereby set aside - Petition allowed. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA For the Appellant : Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemi Reddy, For the Respondent : Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader ORDER (PER HON BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO) In this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges the provisional attachment order dated 01.04.2022 and 06.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at only after recording valid reasons in the note file and with an intention to protect the interest of Government revenue, the 4th respondent issued impugned provisional order of attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner. He thus opposed the writ petition as well as the interim application. This Court passed an elaborate order with the following observations: Admittedly, except saying that the orders of provisional attachment are passed in order to protect the interest of the Government revenue, no other reasons are assigned by the fourth respondent in the impugned orders of the provisional attachment. When sub-Rule (5) of Rule 159 of the Rules specifically provides for filing objections against the orders of provisional attachment, the contention that the reasons for ordering provisional attachment were recorded in the Note File and that there is no need to extract the same or state the same in the provisional order of attachment, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the above referred judgment, also categorically ruled that the formation of opinion on the basis of tangible material which indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that on specific intelligence information that M/s RP Enterprises, M/s AR Traders, and M/s AN Traders have been passing on fake Input Tax Credit without actually purchasing goods in favour of the petitioner Company, investigation was taken up under the provisions of AP GST Act, 2017 and during the course of study of records available with the Department, it came to light that 90% of the input supplies of the petitioner company, were received from the aforesaid three firms but there were no corresponding purchases of scrap by the said three input suppliers and therefore the Special Commissioner, APSDRI has ordered for conducting searches at different locations under the provisions of Section 67 of the APGST Act, 2017. During such search of the aforesaid three traders it was identified that no such firms in existence at the given address. Accordingly, searches at the principal place of business of the petitioner along with the residential premises of the Managing Director of the petitioner company were also conducted in the presence of independent witnesses. Since the investigation revealed that the location of the business premises of the input suppliers of the petitioner Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands and as per the bank statements, in ICICI bank the petitioner has Rs. 1,42,24,933/- and in Axis Bank the petitioner has Rs. 1,81,025/- whereas the tax liability of the petitioner as per the Assessment Order is Rs. 21,58,53,496/-. Thus the funds available in the bank account do not even meet the requirement of the 10% of the appeal amount. The respondent thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for respondents. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. 8. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 9. POINT: As can be seen, in the interim order passed in I.A No. 1 of 2022 this Court in the light of the principles laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra 1) and judgment of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Anjani Impex v. State of Gujarat (supra 2), observed that in the orders of the 4th respondent, except saying that provisional attachment orders were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
