9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 352 - HC - GSTRevocation/cancellation of attachment of petitioner's bank account - section 83 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - If, according to the petitioner, the amount was not payable and/or should not have been demanded and/or that the authority had no jurisdiction to retain such amount, then it is for the authority to take an appropriate decision in that regard, if an application is made for refund of the said amount by the petitioners - It is thus opined that if the petitioners make an application in this regard praying for refund of the amount to the concerned designated officer of the respondent within two weeks from today, let the petitioners be heard on such application and an appropriate order be passed on such application of the petitioners. Application disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the provisional attachment of petitioner's bank account u/s 83 of CGST Act, and the demand for deposit of Rs.1 crore prior to the attachment. Provisional Attachment of Bank Account: The petitioners had no further grievance regarding the provisional attachment of their bank account u/s 83 of CGST Act as it had already been revoked. The petitioners' counsel stated that the prayers related to this issue in the petition had become infructuous. Coercive Deposit Demand: The grievance raised was regarding the demand for deposit of Rs.1 crore before the provisional attachment. The petitioner argued that the concerned officer had no legal authority to make such a demand, freeze the bank account, and issue a show cause notice. The petitioner claimed entitlement to an immediate refund of the amount. The respondent's counsel contended that the amount was voluntarily deposited. Court's Decision: The court held that it could not delve into the conflicting contentions in the Article 226 petition. If the petitioner believed the amount was not payable or should not have been demanded, it was for the authority to decide upon refund if an application was made. The court directed the petitioners to submit an application for refund to the designated officer of the respondent within two weeks. The court stated that the petitioners would be heard on the application, and an appropriate order would be passed. All contentions were expressly kept open. Disposition: The court disposed of the matter in the aforementioned terms, with no costs imposed.
|
