2022 (4) TMI 1403 - HC - GST

Attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - tax liability under GST Act not discharged - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the petitioner is agreeing to pay consolidated amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- per month for discharging/liquidating the tax liability in the respective writ petitions, the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner's representation. However, this order will come into force only after the petitioner's representation is disposed of by the respondent. The petitioners are therefore directed to give a fresh representation with its offer together with such additional security to protect the interest of the revenue to their satisfaction by 02.05.2006 so that a workable formula for liquidating tax liability of the respective petitioners can be achieved. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Attachment of bank account by respondent due to tax liability under GST Act.
2. Petitioners seeking time to liquidate tax liability.
3. Reliance on Supreme Court and High Court judgments regarding power under Section 83 of the CGST Act.
4. Dispute over offering security for staying proceedings.
5. Court's decision to quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's group of Companies faced a substantial loss, leading to an inability to discharge tax liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, resulting in the respondent attaching a bank account through GST DRC Forms. The petitioners requested time to settle the tax dues gradually due to being a going concern with business in Logistics and Port Services.

2. The petitioners proposed a plan to pay &8377; 25,00,000 monthly towards the tax liability, having already paid a portion by borrowing funds. Citing a Supreme Court case, the petitioners argued that power under Section 83 of the CGST Act should be used sparingly and on substantive grounds, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to resolve the issue.

3. A previous request by the petitioners to offer security for staying the proceedings was declined by the respondent, citing existing encumbrances on the properties offered. The court acknowledged the petitioners' commitment to pay the tax liability and directed them to submit a fresh representation with additional security by a specified date for the respondent's consideration.

4. In light of the petitioners' proposal to pay the tax liability over time, the court decided to quash the impugned order and instructed the respondent to reevaluate the case after considering the fresh representation. The court emphasized the need for a prompt resolution to enable the petitioners to meet their financial obligations, particularly regarding employee salaries, highlighting the importance of protecting the revenue's interests.