9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 817 - HC - GSTProvisional attachment of the property - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - It is the grievance of the petitioner that on 23.06.2020, respondent No.4 issued notice in the form of GST DRC-01A without considering the reply of the petitioner - HELD THAT - The Court vide order dated 20.08.2020 quashed and set aside the Form GST DRC-01A dated 23.07.2020 and directed respondent No.4 to initiate fresh proceedings. However, the Court did not disturb the order of provisional attachment passed on 24.07.2020. It is further grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.4 had been directed to initiate fresh proceedings which should have issued in the form of GST DRC-01A instead he chose to issue notice in the form of GST DRC-01A. On 25.08.2020, the summons has been issued under Section 70 of the GST Act where certain documents have been called for. It appears that there is challenge to the order of the assessment which has been passed without filing any appeal on the ground that the order is cryptic and challenge is made on the ground of non-reasoned order. The Court is not rightly concerned with the same as the separate petition had been preferred. Continuation of the attachment beyond the period of one year - contravention of the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act, or not - HELD THAT - As the cause is no longer surviving and the provisional attachment made does not survive any longer by virtue of the order dated 23.09.2021, the petition is being disposed of with the word of caution to the respondents that the statutory provision needs to be complied with very strictly and stringently. There must not be any requirement for the parties to approach this Court for compliance of the provisions of law. If there are statutory remedies available, they may take recourse to, however, the State cannot insist on continuing with something which is impermissible under the law. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Continuation of provisional attachment of property under Section 83 of the CGST Act beyond one year. Analysis: The writ petition sought direction against respondent No.4 to release the provisional attachment of the property under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner argued that continuing the attachment after one year is violative of the provisions. The prayers included directing the release of attachment, issuing necessary orders, and awarding costs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax denied the allegations, stating that the issue pertained to specific assessment years and the relevant provisions of the GST Act applied. The respondent lifted the bank attachment and initiated steps to lift the attachment for immovable property as the statutory period had elapsed. The respondent requested a bank guarantee due to the substantial tax dues. The Court heard arguments from both sides, with the petitioner seeking to challenge the provisional attachment order passed by the respondents before the mandatory one-year period. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and exports, was aggrieved by the attachment of its properties. The Court noted the sequence of events, including the issuance of notices and the attachment of factory and residential premises. The Court had previously quashed certain orders but did not disturb the provisional attachment. The petitioner raised concerns about contradictory actions by the respondent and subsequent legal proceedings. The main issue before the Court was the continuation of the attachment beyond one year, as prescribed under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Court noted that the provisional attachment order had continued despite the passage of the statutory period. However, with an order issued on 23.09.2021 directing the restoration of provisionally attached property, the cause for the petition was deemed resolved. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions and warned against unnecessary approaches to the Court for such compliance. The Court disposed of the petition without imposing costs, despite the case warranting such imposition.
|
