9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 901 - HC - GSTValidity of Garnishee Notice - principles of natural justice - violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and 265 of Constitution of India or not - HELD THAT - As seen from the record, prima facie, it appears that even before the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired, garnishee notice dated 26.08.2020 came to be passed for recovery of tax for the period from January, 2020 to June, 2020; January, 2019 to December, 2019. It is to be noted here that against the assessment order dated 13.08.2020, an appeal lies under section 117 of the central Goods and Service tax Act and the time prescribed for filing the appeal is three months. Even before the expiry of the said period, the Garnishee notice came to be passed. Insofar as the period of recovery from January, 2019 to December, 2019 is concerned, it appears form the record that notice was given on 28.07.2020 intimating the discrepancies in the Returns after scrutiny and the petitioner has to furnish reasons for the discrepancies on or before 27.08.2020. but, though the time expires on 27.08.2020 garnishee Notice came to be passed on 26.08.2020. List the matter on 02.09.2020.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of Garnishee Notice issued by the 1st respondent. 2. Request for issuance of a writ of mandamus. 3. Allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. 5. Stay application for Garnishee Notice pending disposal of the writ petition. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the legality of the Garnishee Notice issued by the 1st respondent, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the impugned notice as without authority of law and in violation of constitutional provisions. 2. The High Court, upon perusing the petition and affidavit, directed the issuance of a notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted. The respondents, including tax authorities and a bank, were directed to appear and respond to the allegations raised by the petitioner. 3. The Court noted that the Garnishee Notice was issued before the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired. It highlighted discrepancies in the notice issuance timeline concerning the recovery periods mentioned in the notice. The Court observed that the notice was issued prematurely, even before the petitioner had the opportunity to address the discrepancies. 4. Regarding the period of recovery from January 2019 to December 2019, the Court found that the notice was issued before the petitioner could furnish reasons for the discrepancies highlighted in the returns. The Court noted the premature issuance of the notice before the expiration of the deadline provided to the petitioner for responding to the identified discrepancies. 5. In response to the stay application for the Garnishee Notice pending disposal of the writ petition, the Court granted an interim stay of the notice's operation for a limited period. The Court scheduled the matter for further hearing along with a connected writ petition, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the issues raised by the petitioner. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the challenge to the Garnishee Notice's legality, the request for a writ of mandamus, and the Court's decision regarding the stay application pending the disposal of the writ petition.
|
