2017 (11) TMI 79 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - Attachment of Bank Account - According to the petitioners, they have succeeded before the Tribunal and therefore, attaching the petitioner s bank account maintained with respondents does not arise - Held that - the entire cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, in the sense that the order-in-original has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong and the appeal was filed before the CESTAT, Kolkata, in which the petitioner states that they have fully succeeded and the attachment of the bank account maintained with respondents 6 to 9, has been made by the 3rd respondent whose office of which is situated in Guwahati - writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a writ petition challenging the attachment of bank accounts by the third respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioners challenged the orders of the third respondent attaching their bank accounts maintained with respondents 6 to 9. They relied on a previous order by the Customs Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, where they had succeeded. The jurisdictional issue arises as the original order was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, and the appeal was filed in Kolkata. The attachment was made by the 3rd respondent in Guwahati, outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.

2. The Court noted a similar case previously adjudicated by the Division Bench concerning the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition. The Revenue argued based on precedents such as M/s.Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and decisions from the Delhi High Court. Applying these decisions to the current case, it was concluded that a writ petition is not maintainable before the Madras High Court.

3. The petitioners' main grievance was the attachment of their bank account, claiming they are not liable for Central Excise Duty or penalties. The Court directed the petitioners to submit their objections with relevant documents to prove their non-liability. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioners to file objections before the third respondent for consideration in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Madras High Court addresses the jurisdictional issue regarding the writ petition challenging the attachment of bank accounts, citing relevant legal precedents and directing the petitioners on the course of action to prove their non-liability for duties and penalties.