2022 (2) TMI 128 - HC - GST

Issuance of summons - blocking of utilized ITC - rule 86A of the CGST Rules - It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid/deposited the substantial amount with the authority under the State GST Act as well as deposited various amounts with the respondent no.5 - HELD THAT - The respondents are granted four weeks time to file affidavit in reply which shall be served upon the petitioner s advocate simultaneously. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within two weeks thereafter with a copy to be served upon the respondents advocate simultaneously. Place the matter on board for admission on 28th March, 2022.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the power of the authority under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to issue summons.
2. Competency of the Managing Director of the petitioner to appear in response to the summons.
3. Granting time for filing affidavit in reply and subsequent legal procedures.
4. Clarification on the stay of summons or proceedings during the pendency of the petition.
5. Direction to respondents to address the prayer clause regarding the supply of copies of the Panchanama.

Issue 1 - Challenge to Authority's Power to Issue Summons:
The petitioner challenges the authority's power under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to issue summons, citing the blocking of utilized ITC by the State GST authority. The petitioner contests the validity of the summons issued on the grounds of the previous actions taken by the State GST authority.

Issue 2 - Competency of Managing Director to Respond to Summons:
The petitioner argues that the Managing Director is not a competent witness to appear in response to the summons issued by the authority. Instead, the petitioner suggests that the Group Chief Finance Officer can represent and cooperate with the authority in this matter, highlighting the Managing Director's lack of competence.

Issue 3 - Filing of Affidavit and Legal Procedures:
The court grants the respondents four weeks to file an affidavit in reply, to be served simultaneously to the petitioner's advocate. A provision for a rejoinder, if necessary, within two weeks thereafter is also established, emphasizing the procedural requirements for the legal process.

Issue 4 - Stay of Summons or Proceedings:
The court clarifies that no stay has been granted on the summons or any other proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner during the pendency of the petition until the next hearing date, setting the tone for the continuation of legal actions.

Issue 5 - Addressing Prayer Clause Regarding Panchanama Copies:
The respondents are directed to address the prayer clause concerning the supply of copies of the Panchanama in the affidavit in reply to be filed, ensuring that all aspects of the petitioner's requests are considered and responded to in the legal proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court encompasses the various issues raised by the parties involved, the court's directions, and the legal procedures to be followed in the ongoing case.