2023 (7) TMI 913 - HC - GST

Attachment of bank account - Principles of natural justice - bank account number indicated in the order of attachment pertains to an account of Another Partnership firm and is not the bank account of Petitioner Firm - Common partners in both the firms - HELD THAT - It is evident that the show-cause notice of November 8, 2019 was issued in terms of Section 174 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The relevant assessee, including the partners thereof, should reasonably have been aware that upon a show-cause notice of such kind being issued and the response being received, an order would follow, whether dropping the demand or finding the assessee liable for the entirety or a part of the demand. It would not do for the assessee to claim that the assessee had no obligation to keep track of the matter. At any rate, the thin thread on which the present petition hangs is as to whether the relevant order-in-original of August 14, 2020 was issued to or received by the assessee in question. For a start, since this writ petition has been filed by a different partnership firm, albeit through a common partner, the allegation in the petition that the relevant assessee did not receive the order-in-original cannot be taken cognisance of - the writ petitioner or the relevant assessee or its officers should have taken appropriate steps in accordance with law by now. It is nearly 10 months since the receipt of the relevant notice by the assessee. Though there is no period of limitation prescribed for matters pertaining to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet the writ court does not come to support a laggard or someone who has slept over his perceived rights. The petition is not entertained and the relevant assessee and its officers are left free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the validity of an order of attachment of a bank account by the Central Goods and Services Tax authorities, the receipt of the order-in-original by the relevant assessee, and the obligation of the assessee to take timely action in response to legal notices.

Validity of Order of Attachment:
The petition, filed by a partnership firm through one of its partners, contested the order of attachment of a bank account issued against another partnership firm, Bhalang Associates. The petitioner argued that the bank account number in question belonged to Amjok Auto Agencies, not Bhalang Associates. However, it was revealed that the partner filing the petition was associated with both Bhalang Associates and Amjok Auto Agencies.

Receipt of Order-in-Original:
The primary contention raised by the writ petitioner was that Bhalang Associates and its partners did not receive the order-in-original, leading to the branding of the relevant assessee as a defaulter. The order-in-original was issued following a show-cause notice from the Department, to which the assessee responded. The court emphasized that upon receiving a show-cause notice, the assessee should have been aware of potential consequences, and cannot claim ignorance of the matter.

Obligation to Take Timely Action:
The court highlighted the importance of timely action by the relevant assessee upon receiving legal notices. It was noted that if the order-in-original had not been served, a representation should have been made promptly upon receiving the notice of attachment. The court emphasized that there is no room to support a delay in taking appropriate steps in accordance with the law.

Separate Judgment:
After the initial order was pronounced, it was clarified by the Department that Bhalang Associates is not a partnership firm as claimed by the writ petitioner, but a proprietorship firm of Bhalang Singh Phanbuh, who is a partner of the petitioner. This clarification was made after the judgment was delivered.

In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, allowing the relevant assessee and its officers to take necessary steps in accordance with the law. The writ petitioner firm was granted the right to make a representation to the Department regarding the payment under the order-in-original. No costs were awarded in the case.