2019 (11) TMI 1314 - HC - GST

Provisional attachment - freezing the bank accounts of the petitioner - Non-existing assessee - Risky Exporters - Local Commissioner has tendered in Court the report prepared by her - on perusal of the said report that upon physical verification, the premises in question, was not found in occupation of the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - We had appointed the Local Commissioner, since the petitioner had categorically asserted despite being confronted with the submissions of Mr. Aditya Yadav, that the petitioner is very much present at, and running its office from the said address viz. 130, Plot No. 8, Mangalam Paradise Mall, Magalam Palace, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, and the entirety of the situation, including the fact that the petitioner is also claimed to be a Risky Exporter , we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Premises occupation dispute
2. Relocation claim and contradictory statements
3. Appointment of Local Commissioner
4. Discrepancy in registered and claimed addresses
5. Allegations of evading scrutiny
6. Clean hands doctrine application
7. Dismissal of the petition

Premises Occupation Dispute:
The Local Commissioner's report revealed that the petitioner's claimed premises was not in their occupation as stated. Instead, it was found locked and being used as a godown by another individual running a restaurant nearby. Photographic evidence supported this finding, contradicting the petitioner's claim.

Relocation Claim and Contradictory Statements:
The petitioner's counsel mentioned the intention to shift from the premises, but this assertion was not made during previous court proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner highlighted the petitioner as a 'Risky Exporter' due to the locked premises and unserved notice, casting doubt on the relocation claim.

Appointment of Local Commissioner:
The Local Commissioner was appointed to investigate the discrepancy between the petitioner's claim and the actual use of the premises. Despite being confronted with conflicting statements and evidence, the petitioner maintained their position, leading to the appointment of the Local Commissioner.

Discrepancy in Registered and Claimed Addresses:
The petitioner disclosed different addresses in various documents, creating confusion regarding their actual location. The discrepancy between the registered address and the claimed address, along with statements made by the Proprietor, raised suspicions of attempting to avoid scrutiny by authorities.

Allegations of Evading Scrutiny:
The petitioner's actions, including providing conflicting addresses and statements, raised concerns about evading scrutiny, especially regarding alleged export activities under examination. The attempt to mislead authorities and the court further fueled suspicions of misconduct.

Clean Hands Doctrine Application:
The court found the petitioner's submission of vacating the premises and other claims inconsistent with the evidence presented. The failure to disclose accurate information and the attempt to mislead authorities indicated a lack of clean hands, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's submissions.

Dismissal of the Petition:
Considering the petitioner's failure to approach the court with clean hands, the contradictory statements, discrepancy in addresses, and the 'Risky Exporter' classification, the court dismissed the petition. The court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner due to the overall circumstances and lack of credibility in the petitioner's claims.