9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 500 - HC - GSTDirection to allow the operation of the bank account against the action taken by the Respondents under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - There is, therefore, no reason why we should not take the similar view as taken in the M/S. JAYCHEM ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, NAGPUR ZONAL UNIT ORS. 2021 (7) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and ask the Petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 159 (5) of the GST Rules for revocation of the attachment. The contention of the Petitioner that the authority will not be able to decide whether it has jurisdiction is not correct and it is not the law that the moment an issue of jurisdiction is raised, the authority is rendered powerless. There is, therefore, no reason to take a different view than the one taken in Jaychem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The grievance of the Petitioner that the bank account has remained attached for a long period of time, is to be noted but partially it is the Petitioner to blame for not taking recourse to Rule 159(5) of the Rules. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order attaching bank account under Section 83 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017; Jurisdiction of the Respondent-Authority. Analysis: The Petitioner challenged the order attaching their bank account under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017. Besides factual aspects, the Petitioner raised an issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Respondent-Authority. The Petitioner argued that being a registered person under the CGST Act falling within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu GST Act, the Respondents, officers under MGST Act, did not have jurisdiction over them. The Petitioner sought writ jurisdiction of the Court based on this jurisdictional issue. The Respondents cited a previous decision of the Court in M/s. Jaychem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. to argue that the Petitioner should first use Rule 159(5) of the Maharashtra GST Rules and address the case on merits. The Court noted that the previous case of Jaychem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. dealt with a similar challenge under Section 83 of CGST Act. In that case, the Court emphasized the importance of following the procedure under Rule 159(5) before seeking judicial intervention, highlighting the effectiveness of the remedy provided by the Rules. The Court reiterated the importance of exhausting the remedy under Rule 159(5) before seeking intervention, as demonstrated in the previous case. It emphasized that the remedy provided by the Rules was effective and could lead to substantial relief if a valid case was presented. The Court declined to interfere at that stage but granted the Petitioner time to approach the Additional Director General under Rule 159(5) for a reasoned decision after a hearing. Considering the precedents and the importance of following the prescribed procedure, the Court directed the Petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules for revocation of the attachment. The Court rejected the contention that raising an issue of jurisdiction rendered the authority powerless, emphasizing the need to follow the established procedure. The Court also acknowledged the Petitioner's grievance regarding the duration of the bank account attachment but noted the Petitioner's responsibility in not utilizing Rule 159(5) earlier. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the Petitioner to approach the authority under Rule 159(5) within a week for a decision within three weeks, while keeping all contentions raised by the parties open for further consideration.
|
