9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 603 - HC - GSTAttachment of property - issuance of summons for the presence of applicant - applicant expressed inability to be present as he was medically advised not to step out - HELD THAT - No sooner the writ applicant failed to respond to the summons issued to him by the respondent No.4 under Section 70 of the Act, the respondent No.4 proceeded to pass an order in Form GST DRC-01A fixing the liability of ₹ 1,07,05,725/- to be paid to the department - It is not in dispute that the writ applicant had no opportunity to make good his case that all his transactions are legal and free from any doubt. Besides the same, the writ applicant had informed the respondent No.4 that he has been medically advised not to get out of his house. During that particular period, the writ applicant had also undergone cataract surgery. Having regard to the fact that a huge liability has been determined to be discharged by the writ applicant, one opportunity of hearing should be given to the writ applicant - matter remitted to the respondent No.4 for fresh consideration of the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant - application allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to Form DRC 1A and provisional attachment order in Form GST DRC-22 issued by respondent no. 4; Request for lifting attachment of properties, staying operation of Form GST DRC 01A, and avoiding coercive action against the petitioner; Seeking appropriate orders, directions, or reliefs from the Hon’ble Court; Dispute arising from respondent No.4's actions; Opportunity for hearing and fresh consideration of the matter; Decision on quashing Form GST DRC-01A and remitting the matter for reconsideration; Continuation of provisional attachment of properties for protecting government revenue. Analysis: The writ applicant, a businessman engaged in manufacturing, sought relief from a summons issued by respondent No.4 under GST Act, 2017, due to health reasons preventing his presence on the specified date. Subsequently, respondent No.4 assessed a liability of ?1,07,05,725 against the applicant without providing an opportunity to defend his transactions. The High Court acknowledged the applicant's health concerns and the lack of a fair hearing, leading to the quashing of the order in Form GST DRC-01A. The matter was remitted to respondent No.4 for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of due process and the right to be heard. Regarding the provisional attachment of the applicant's properties, the Court decided not to disturb the order despite quashing the liability assessment. This decision aimed to prevent third-party rights from arising during the reconsideration process. By maintaining the attachment temporarily, the Court balanced the interests of the government revenue with the applicant's right to a fair hearing. The judgment highlighted the need for procedural fairness and protection of legal rights in matters involving substantial liabilities and property attachments. In conclusion, the writ application was disposed of with the order to quash Form GST DRC-01A, provide the applicant with a hearing opportunity, and continue the provisional attachment for the interim period. The judgment exemplified the Court's commitment to ensuring justice, procedural regularity, and equitable treatment in tax-related disputes, emphasizing the significance of fair procedures and balanced outcomes in legal proceedings.
|
