2022 (12) TMI 1174 - HC - GST

Attachment of Bank account of petitioner - Remission of deficit court fees of Rs.600/- during the course of this day - petition dismissed on the ground that the appellant / writ petitioner is not aware of the fate of the revisional application, which it had filed against the order passed by the appellate authority dated 7th February, 2014 - HELD THAT - The appeal is partly allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside with a direction to the appellant to file an application before the revisional authority clearly setting out all facts and requesting the revisional authority to recall the order disposing of the revisional application and if such an application is filed, the revisional authority shall take up the same and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the appellant. As stated by the learned Advocate for the appellant that sum of Rs.16,51,924/- has been recovered after the writ petition was dismissed, we feel the interest of revenue has been sufficiently safeguarded as more than 50% of the total dues has already been recovered. Therefore, the garnishee order for the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance and abide by the orders to be passed by the revisional authority in terms of the above direction. The attachment of the bank account of the appellant shall be lifted within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment in order to enable the appellant to operate its bank account - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against garnishee order for tax and penalty recovery, non-communication of revisional application status, recovery of partial outstanding amount, bank account attachment, application for recall of revisional order.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged a garnishee order for tax and penalty recovery following an assessment order. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition due to the appellant's lack of awareness regarding the revisional application's status. The appellant claimed to have requested changes in business details prior to assessment, which were not processed. Furthermore, the appellant alleged lack of hearing before the appellate authority's order dated February 7, 2014.

The appellant filed a revisional application but remained uninformed about the hearing or subsequent steps. Only during the writ petition proceedings, it was revealed that the revisional application had been disposed of without informing the appellant. Subsequently, a significant amount was recovered from the appellant, leaving a balance outstanding.

The Court acknowledged the peculiar circumstances and partially allowed the appeal. It directed the appellant to file an application before the revisional authority, outlining all facts and requesting a recall of the revisional application's disposal. The revisional authority was instructed to review the application, provide a speaking order, and grant a personal hearing to the appellant's representative.

Considering over 50% of the dues already recovered, the Court decided to keep the garnishee order for the balance amount in abeyance pending the revisional authority's decision. The attachment of the appellant's bank account was ordered to be lifted within three days to enable normal operations. A connected application was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed on either party.

The judgment concluded with instructions for expeditious provision of a certified copy to the parties upon completion of legal formalities, signed by the presiding judges T.S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya.