9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 896 - HC - GSTSeeking revocation of provisional attachment of the Petitioner s bank account - only contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that there was no reason to believe nor was there any tangible material for the Commissioner to confirm the provisional attachment of the Petitioner s bank account in exercise of the powers under Section 83 of the the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - There was substantial material for the Commissioner to form an opinion that the interest of the Revenue is required to be protected. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not contended that such material was not tangible material to form the opinion to attach the Petitioner s bank account nor such a case is made out in the application filed by the Petitioner for revocation of the provisional attachment. Thus, merely relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT , would not suffice, in the absence of material available for the Petitioner to confront the department against an action under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner having failed to even make out a prima-facie case against the provisional attachment, it is difficult for us to be persuaded to take a different view in the matter. In any event, it is brought to notice by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that now a Show Cause Notice dated 29th February 2024, under the provisions of Sections 74(1) and 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 as also the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 read with IGST Act, 2017 has been issued to the Petitioner - SCN has abundant material which has been gathered by the department in the investigation in making a tax demand of Rs. 3.63 crores against the Petitioner, along with the recovery of other amounts as set out in paragraph 40 of the Show Cause Notice. There are no merit in this Petition. It is accordingly rejected.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order confirming the provisional attachment of a bank account under Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rule, 2017. The main contention is the lack of tangible material for the Commissioner to confirm the attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Application for Revocation of Provisional Attachment The petitioner filed an application under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, seeking revocation of the provisional attachment of the bank account. The court observed that the essential elements required to persuade the authority to revoke the attachment were absent from the application. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the application were deemed insufficient to challenge the material forming the basis of the attachment. Issue 2: Sufficiency of Material for Attachment The court noted that there was substantial material available for the Commissioner to form an opinion that protecting the interest of the Revenue necessitated the attachment. The petitioner's contentions did not provide enough grounds to dispel the material relied upon for the attachment. The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case against the provisional attachment. Issue 3: Show Cause Notice and Further Proceedings It was brought to the court's attention that a Show Cause Notice had been issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the CGST Act, along with the Maharashtra GST Act and IGST Act. The notice contained abundant material supporting a tax demand of Rs. 3.63 crores against the petitioner. Given the discrepancy between the demand and the amount in the petitioner's bank account, the court found no merit in the petition and rejected it, allowing the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice. The judgment emphasizes the importance of tangible material and proper grounds for challenging provisional attachments under tax laws, ultimately upholding the Commissioner's decision based on the available evidence and the interest of Revenue protection.
|
