9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1054 - HC - GSTSeeking release of Provisional attachment of property - petitioner's director has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the petitioner's director has deposited Rs. 50,00,000/-, which stands confirmed in the Show Cause Notice No.9/2023 dated 06.02.2023 issued to the petitioner, there shall be a direction for lifting the order of attachment. The third respondent shall allow the petitioner to operate the account. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the issuance of a Mandamus to release the bank account attachment of the petitioner u/s 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and the validity of the provisional attachment order. Bank Account Attachment: The writ petition was filed to direct the first respondent to release the bank account attachment of the petitioner u/s 83 of the CGST Act, which was provisionally attached by a communication dated 01.10.2021. The petitioner's account with HDFC Bank was attached to protect the revenue, and no debit was allowed without prior permission. The petitioner was accused of providing manpower supply/bill trading and passing on ineligible credit to customers to avail ineligible Input Tax Credit. Validity of Provisional Attachment Order: The provisional attachment order was issued on 01.10.2021 and was valid for one year u/s 83(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner's director deposited Rs. 50,00,000 post facto, which was confirmed in the Show Cause Notice No.9/2023 dated 06.02.2023. As the amount was deposited and confirmed, there was a direction to lift the order of attachment and allow the petitioner to operate the account. The court directed the respondents to dispose of the Show Cause Notice expeditiously. Conclusion: The court disposed of the Writ Petition with the observation that since the provisional order of attachment was valid for one year and the petitioner's director had deposited the required amount, the attachment order was to be lifted, and the petitioner was allowed to operate the account. The respondents were directed to expedite the disposal of the Show Cause Notice. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
