9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 818 - HC - GSTProvisional attachment - wrongful availment of input tax credit - prayer for a short adjournment to seek instructions with regard to the assertion as has been made by the petitioner that its account was attached provisionally on 13.08.2019 which could continue only upto 12.08.2020 - applicability of Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act which limits the operation of such order of provisional attachment for one year - HELD THAT - The fact remains that the requirement of the statute as provided for under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, which limits the operation of order of provisional attachment for one year having elapsed, the competent authority is required to pass an order, withdrawing the provisional attachment as ordered on 13.08.2019 (Annexure P-1). Liberty shall, however, be available to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner as permissible in law. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved: Provisional attachment of account under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act for more than one year, requirement of withdrawing the provisional attachment order, availability of liberty to respondents to proceed against the petitioner.
Analysis: 1. Provisional Attachment Exceeding One Year: The petitioner asserted that its account was provisionally attached on 13.08.2019, and more than one year had passed since then. The respondent did not dispute this factual assertion but claimed that evidence had been collected showing wrongful availment of input tax credit by the petitioner. However, the Court noted that as per Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, the operation of a provisional attachment order is limited to one year. The Court emphasized that since the statutory requirement had elapsed, the competent authority was obligated to pass an order withdrawing the provisional attachment as ordered on 13.08.2019. 2. Withdrawal of Provisional Attachment Order: Given that the one-year limit for the provisional attachment had expired, the Court directed the competent authority to withdraw the provisional attachment order. The judgment highlighted the necessity of complying with the statutory provisions under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with this directive. 3. Liberty to Proceed Against the Petitioner: While ordering the withdrawal of the provisional attachment, the Court also granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner as permissible under the law. This provision ensures that despite the withdrawal of the attachment order, the respondents retain the right to take appropriate legal action against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The judgment thus safeguarded the interests of both parties by upholding the statutory provisions and providing the respondents with the opportunity to pursue further legal actions within the bounds of the law.
|
