9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 988 - HC - GSTSeeking permission for withdrawal of petition - Evasion of GST - action against the Petitioner under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the GST Acts without following the due process of assessment and adjudication under Section 73/74 of the GST Acts - HELD THAT - Without entering into the merits of the matter, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues:
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against coercive action under GST Acts without due process. 2. Ad interim relief granted by Co-ordinate Bench. 3. Apprehension of coercive steps without basis. 4. Submission by Assistant Government Pleader regarding binding directions from a previous case. 5. Permission sought to withdraw the petition. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against any coercive action under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the GST Acts without following due process of assessment and adjudication under Section 73/74 of the GST Acts for alleged evasion of tax liability. The petitioner requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate order restraining the respondent authorities from taking such action. Issue 2: A Co-ordinate Bench of the Court had previously issued ad interim relief on November 25, 2019, stating that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the subject matter of the petition. Issue 3: The petitioner's advocate expressed concerns that the respondent might take coercive steps against the petitioner without any valid basis, leading to the filing of the petition. Issue 4: The Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents referred to a previous case, Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Versus State of Gujarat and Others, highlighting that the respondents are bound by the directions given in that case. It was emphasized that no coercive steps would be taken contrary to the directions provided in the said decision. Issue 5: Following the submissions made by both parties, the petitioner's advocate sought permission to withdraw the petition at that stage. Consequently, without delving into the merits of the matter, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn, and the interim relief was vacated.
|
