2021 (11) TMI 355 - HC - GST

Validity of garnishee notice issued u/s 79 of CGST Act - the respondent no. 4 has frozen the bank account of the petitioners - Alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT - Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the objection taken by the respondents, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition as the petitioners have already filed an appeal and the petitioners have approached this Court without approaching the appellate authority or even the authority who has issued the impugned garnishee notice. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to move the authority who has issued the garnishee notice and pray for recall of the garnishee notice. It will also be open to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority for expeditious disposal of appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to garnishee Notice under Section 79 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 without approaching the appellate authority.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the garnishee Notice issued under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017, which froze their bank account. The petitioners had filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original before the appellate authority before the garnishee Notice was issued. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners should have first approached the authority regarding the appeal. The respondents suggested that the petitioners should seek expeditious disposal of the appeal from the appellate authority instead of approaching the High Court directly.

The High Court, after considering the arguments from both parties, declined to entertain the writ petition since the petitioners had already filed an appeal and had not approached the appellate authority or the authority issuing the garnishee Notice. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the authority issuing the notice to request its recall. Additionally, the petitioners were allowed to seek expeditious disposal of the appeal from the appellate authority. The Court clarified that it did not consider the merits of the petition, emphasizing that the authorities should proceed according to the law.

The respondents' counsel assured that if the petitioners approached the appellate authority for expeditious disposal of the appeal, it would be prioritized for an early hearing. The Court closed the related application, emphasizing that it had not delved into the merits of the petition. The judgment concluded by stating that the authorities should proceed in accordance with the law, indicating that the petitioners should follow the prescribed legal procedures for their case.