9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 36 - HC - GSTProvisional attachment of property - petitioner states that in the absence of any notice issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), no order of attachment under Section 83 of the Act, 2017 could have been passed by the respondents - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. A Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in PRANIT HEM DESAI VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DGGI, AZU 2019 (4) TMI 917 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that considering the fact that the petitioners were diligently prosecuting the proceedings before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders of attachment, if the petitioners file objections under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 on or before 18th April, 2019, the competent authority shall consider the same as having been filed within time. It is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to treat the present writ petition as an objection under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and decide the same within three working days - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without prior notice under Section 74. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner's bankers without prior notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that without such notice, the attachment order under Section 83 of the Act could not have been passed. The High Court noted that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was applicable to the case. The Rule allows a person whose property is attached to file an objection within seven days, stating that the attached property is not liable for attachment. The Court referred to a judgment by the High Court of Gujarat, which emphasized the importance of following the procedure outlined in Rule 159(5) before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court highlighted that the petitioners in the Gujarat case were informed of their right to file objections under Rule 159(5) within seven days of attachment. The Court expressed reluctance to entertain petitions under Article 226 when an efficacious alternative remedy, such as filing objections under the Rule, was available before the competent authority. Consequently, the petitions in the Gujarat case were dismissed due to the availability of the alternative remedy under Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In the present case, the High Court directed respondent No.1 to treat the writ petition as an objection under Rule 159(5) and decide the same within three working days. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this direction, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedure before seeking relief through the High Court. The order was to be uploaded on the website immediately, and a copy was to be sent to the respective counsels via email for compliance.
|
