9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 28.05.2024) 1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28 May 2024, pursuant to which the respondents have proceeded to provisionally attach the bank account maintained by it in exercise of powers conferred by Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act]. 2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since it fails to record or reflect any satisfaction having been formed by the competent authority that the provisional attachment was warranted in order to protect the interest of Government revenue. 3. Our attention was also drawn to the following principles that were enunciated by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Hima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attach the properties of the assessee, immovable properties must be attached. Attachment of bank accounts and trading assets should be a last resort only as it paralyses the business of the assessee. 19.16. The pendency of proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74, of the HPGST Act, is a precondition for invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the HPGST Act. 19.17. The provisional attachment of the appellant's assets was made on 28-10-2020, before the proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Section 74 of the HPGST Act on 27-11-2020. Thus, the provisional attachment was made without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 83. 19.18. The provisions of Section 83 of the HPGST Act do not provide for making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant be liable to pay tax on outward supplies. However, the appellant has already paid Rs 12.49 crores of tax on outward supplies. 19.24. The third respondent has raised a demand of Rs 39 crores against GM Powertech for illegally availing ITC. Once the tax demand has been confirmed against GM Powertech, refusal to grant ITC to the appellant would amount to double collection of tax." 4. As we view the provisional attachment order, we find that an allegation is levelled that it had come to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner firm had made suspicious and fraudulent payments to a particular account. It is further alleged that it had also wrongly availed of Input Tax Credit [ITC] to the tune of INR 19,37,431/-. It is in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come payable [by such person], whichever is lower, then such property shall be released forthwith, by an order in Form GST DRC-23, on proof of payment. (4) Where [such person] fails to pay the amount referred to in sub-rule (3) in respect of the said property of perishable or hazardous nature, the Commissioner may dispose of such property and the amount realized thereby shall be adjusted against the tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount payable by [such person]. (5) Any person whose property is attached may [file an objection in FORM GST DRC-22A] to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment, and the Commissioner may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the person filing the objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
