9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 623 - HC - GSTSearch and Seizure - the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent which is without any legal basis - it is submitted by the petitioner though the Hon ble Supreme Court has directed to pay 10% of the liability during the investigation, the petitioners herein are inclined to pay 20% of the alleged liability as of today - HELD THAT - The learned counsel for the respondent submit the amount stated above is tentative and since the investigation is still going on, the amount of liability may increase. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits as and when the amount would increase they shall comply with further directions passed by this Court. It is further submitted the petitioner has paid ₹ 1.50 crores approx. to the department and that the raids are being conducted respondent at the office of the petitioner. Let the petitioner deposit an amount equivalent to 25% of the amount of ₹ 17.00 crores, the alleged liability as is of today and shall also join the investigation as and when directed by the department. The amount shall be deposited within two weeks from today. List on 30.09.2020.
Issues:
1. Petition challenging search and seizure under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Allegations of illegal actions and violation of due process by respondents. 3. Application for writs of Certiorari/Mandamus to quash proceedings initiated by respondents. 4. Legal basis for arrest under Finance Act, 1994 and CGST Act. 5. Applicability of case law in similar contexts. 6. Compliance with deposit requirements during investigation. Analysis: 1. The petitioners filed a petition challenging the search and seizure conducted by the respondents under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petition sought writs of Certiorari/Mandamus to quash the search and seizure, along with connected proceedings, alleging that the actions were illegal and contrary to established procedures. 2. The petitioners argued that the respondents were acting without legal basis and in violation of due process and procedures prescribed under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners contended that the actions of the respondents were also violative of the provisions of the Cr.PC and principles of natural justice. 3. Referring to relevant case law, the petitioners highlighted the necessity to follow specific procedures before arrest under the Finance Act, 1994, and the CGST Act. The petitioners emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements before taking coercive steps against individuals. 4. The petitioners cited precedents from different High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to support their arguments regarding the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the CGST Act in similar cases. 5. In response to the petitioners' contentions, the respondents raised concerns about the tentative nature of the alleged liability and the ongoing investigation. The respondents indicated that the liability amount might increase as the investigation progresses. 6. The Court directed the petitioners to deposit an amount equivalent to 25% of the alleged liability within a specified timeframe and to cooperate with the investigation as required by the department. The Court noted that a partial amount had already been deposited by the petitioners, which would be taken into account. 7. The Court clarified that the order applied specifically to the petitioners in this case and should not be considered a precedent for future cases. The matter was scheduled for further listing on a specified date to monitor compliance and progress in the case.
|
