2021 (8) TMI 1127 - HC - GST

Attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - lack of jurisdiction in issuing the attachment order - HELD THAT - The representation made by the petitioner is already pending before respondent no.3 - the said attachment order dated 14.1.2021 was passed on the date on which a search was carried out at the premises of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Central, GST, 2017. Therefore, there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction in issuing the attachment order. Post decisional hearing was to be afforded by respondent no.3 after it had issued, the attachment order dated 14.1.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). In that regard, the petitioner has already filed a written objection dated 25.3.2021. That was received by respondent no.3 on 1.4.2021 - no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this stage. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Prayer for supply of documents mentioned in Annexure-A for statutory compliances.
2. Challenge to the attachment of the bank account of M/s Wave Agro Oils.
3. Direction to return the illegally taken amount of ?14,99,552.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to compel respondent no.1 to supply documents listed in Annexure-A for statutory compliances. The court noted that the representation regarding this issue was already pending before respondent no.3. Therefore, the court found no need to intervene at this stage.

2. The second prayer aimed to set aside the attachment of the petitioner's bank account. The court observed that the attachment order was issued during a search at the petitioner's premises under Section 67 of the Central GST Act. The court held that there was no lack of jurisdiction in issuing the attachment order. The petitioner claimed denial of an opportunity for a hearing. However, the court noted that the petitioner had already submitted a written objection, and the matter was pending before respondent no.3 for further action.

3. The final prayer requested the return of ?14,99,552 allegedly taken illegally by the respondent Department. The court mentioned that the petitioner's representation for the refund was also pending before respondent no.3. Considering the pending actions and submissions, the court deemed it unnecessary to keep the petition pending or call for a counter affidavit. The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.3 to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's objection within two weeks, after providing a hearing to the petitioner.