9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 309 - HC - GSTRelease of provisionally attached goods - petitioners submits that as only show cause notice under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been issued, the attachment under Section 83 of CGST Act can not be made - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The impugned Provisional attachment order has been issued by the competent authority under Section 83 of the Act for the purpose of protecting interest of the Government revenue. Against the order of Provisional attachment under Section 83(1) of the Act, the petitioners have an opportunity to file an objection under sub-Rule 5 of Rule 159 of the Rules. It has been admitted before us by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not filed any objection against the impugned provisional attachment dated 22.07.2020. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to suffer from any manifest error of law. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 74(5) and Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. Applicability and relevance of cited judgments from other High Courts. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Provisional Attachment Orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017: The petitioners challenged the provisional attachment orders dated 22.07.2020 and 05.02.2020 issued by the respondent under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. They argued that since only a show cause notice under Section 70 had been issued, the attachment under Section 83 was not justified. The court examined the provisions of Section 83, which allows provisional attachment to protect government revenue during the pendency of proceedings under specified sections, including Section 74. The court found that the attachment was issued to protect the interest of government revenue and that the petitioners had an opportunity to file an objection under Rule 159(5), which they did not utilize. Therefore, the court held that the provisional attachment orders did not suffer from any manifest error of law. 2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 74(5) and Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017: The court noted that the proper officer issued an intimation under Section 74(5) and Rule 142(1A) on 22.07.2020, requiring the petitioners to deposit the ascertained amount or submit objections. The petitioners did not submit any objections against this ascertainment. The court emphasized that Section 74(5) allows a person chargeable with tax to pay the amount before the service of notice under sub-section (1) and inform the proper officer. The court found that the proper officer had afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to file an objection, which they failed to do. Consequently, the court held that the procedural requirements were duly followed. 3. Applicability and Relevance of Cited Judgments from Other High Courts: The petitioners relied on several judgments from other High Courts to support their case. The court examined these judgments in detail: - Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgment (CWP No. 31382 of 2019): The court noted that this judgment dealt with the attachment of an Over Cash Credit account with a debit balance, which was not the case here. Therefore, it was not applicable to the present facts. - Bombay High Court Judgment (Writ Petition No. 3145 of 2019): This judgment found provisional attachment invalid as no proceedings under Section 83 were initiated. In the present case, proceedings under Section 74 were pending, making the judgment inapplicable. - Gujarat High Court Judgment (R/Special Civil Application No. 19533 of 2019): This judgment held that no proceedings under Section 67 were pending, making the provisional attachment invalid. However, in the present case, proceedings under Section 74 were pending, differentiating the facts. - Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment (CWP No. 11961 of 2020): This judgment found the attachment order invalid as proceedings under Section 67 were over. The facts of the present case were different, as proceedings under Section 74 were ongoing. The court concluded that the cited judgments did not support the petitioners' case due to differing factual circumstances. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The provisional attachment orders were upheld as legally valid and procedurally compliant under the CGST Act, 2017.
|
