2024 (2) TMI 800 - HC - GST

Attachment of bank account - Failure to pay tax due to due amounts from the main contractors had not been received - petitioner s submission is that he has to incur a huge expenditure for payment of salaries to his workforce and if his amount is attached and credited to the departmental account, the petitioner will be put to much hardship and the employees will be deprived of their salaries - HELD THAT - Since tax payment is one of the burdens of the petitioner, this Court is not able to consider the request of the petitioner to raise the attachment. The learned Senior Counsel made an alternative prayer that for payment of the balance of the tax amount, the department may grant him reasonable time. This Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the 1st respondent seeking time for payment of the balance of the tax amount within two (2) weeks from today, in which case, the 1st respondent shall consider the same, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, but not later than one (1) week from the date of receipt of the representation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the issuance of Form GST DRC-13 to a bank, seeking relief through a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order, and requesting adjustment of tax arrears against bill amounts received from third parties.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Challenge to the Issuance of Form GST DRC-13
The petitioner, a sub-contractor under main contractors executing works for the State Government, challenged the issuance of a garnishee notice to the petitioner's bank for attachment of a tax amount. The petitioner expressed concern over the potential financial hardship and inability to pay employee salaries if the amount is attached. The Court acknowledged the burden of tax payment on the petitioner but declined to raise the attachment. However, the Court allowed the petitioner to submit a representation to the 1st respondent seeking time for payment of the balance of the tax amount. The respondent was directed to consider the representation, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass an appropriate order expeditiously.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to submit a representation to the 1st respondent seeking time for payment of the balance of the tax amount. The respondent was instructed to consider the representation, provide a hearing to the petitioner, and issue an appropriate order within one week of receiving the representation. No costs were awarded, and any pending interlocutory applications in the case were closed.