9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the rank of Deputy Commissioner though as per section 67 such authorization should be by a proper ofcer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner There is no such authorization under section 67 of the MGST Act in respect of M/s. Praful Nanji Satra. Shri Praful Nanji Satra was summoned under section 70 of the MGST Act to tender evidence as a witness in connection with proceedings under section 67 of the MGST Act and section 64 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 in the case of M/s. Satra Retail Private Limited which prima-facie is a diferent business entity distinct from M/s. Praful Nanji Satra. Thus, it is evident that there was no proceeding against M/s. Praful Nanji Satra or against Shri Praful Nanji Satra under section 67 of the MGST Act. If that be so, then invocation of power under section 83 of the MGST Act against the petitioner would not be justified. Section 83 does not provide for such delegation or authorization. The opinion contemplated under section 83 of the MGST Act that to protect the interest of government revenue, it is necessary to provisionally attach any property including bank account has to be necessarily that of the Commissioner. No such opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es whereafter, summons under section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefy 'the MGST Act' hereinafter) were issued. However, no such search was undertaken against the petitioner and petitioner has not received any summons from the ofce of respondent no.2. 6. It is stated that petitioner had submitted GST returns till February, 2020 and had accordingly paid GST. However because of Covid-19 pandemic, petitioner had not received any license fee in respect of the rented premises from March, 2020 and accordingly no GST was deposited from March, 2020. Resultantly, petitioner submitted GST return for June, 2020 declaring NIL tax. As it is, respondents had extended the last date for fling of GST return till 31.07.2020. 7. On or about the 3rd week of June, 2020, petitioner came to know that his bank account bearing No.001101218141 maintained with the ICICI Bank, Andheri West Branch, Mumbai, was provisionally attached by respondent no.3. As a result, petitioner was prevented from operating the said bank account. 8. Since petitioner was not served with a copy of the provisional attachment order, a copy of the same was sought for and obtained by him fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shabh Praful Satra (Son of Petitioner) 2 Satra Retail Pvt Ltd. Shareholders- Shri. Praful Nanji Satra 51% (Petitioner) Shri. Rushabh Patel Satra 49% (Son of Petitioner) Relatives of Key Managerial person- Shri. Praful Nanji Satra (Petitioner) Authorized Signatory- Shri. Praful Nanji Satra (Petitioner) 3 Satra Properties (India) Ltd. Director- Shri. Praful Nanji Satra (Petitioner) Shareholders- Shri. Praful Nanji Satra 26.21% (Petitioner) 4 Minaxi Satra Ventures Proprietor- Smt. Minaxi Praful Satra (Wife of Petitioner) 5 Praful Nanji Satra Proprietor- Shri. Praful Nanji Satra (Petitioner) 6 Bleu Noir Directors- Infrastructure Shri. Rushabh Praful Satra (Son of Development Pvt LtdPetitioner) Smt. Minakshi Praful Satra (Wife of Petitioner) 12.2. It is stated that on prima facie verifcation of the available record of the related group of companies, following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of M/s. Prarush Impex with which petitioner is nowhere connected. That being the position, exercise of power under section 83 of the MGST Act qua the petitioner is not justifed. Impugned provisional attachment therefore cannot be justifed. In so far other business entities belonging to the petitioner's wife or son are concerned, it is contended that those are distinct business entities having separate legal identity. Thereafter, petitioner has given details of his relationship with the entities referred to by the respondents as under: i. M/s. Prarush Impex - The entity is a proprietorship business of the Petitioner's son, Mr. Rushabh Satra and the Petitioner is unconnected to the business. ii. Satra Retail Private Limited - The Petitioner is neither a shareholder nor a director in this entity as on date and even on the date of investigation being carried on 17.01.2020. In fact, the Petitioner had resigned as a Director on 16.12.2017 and had sold his shareholding on 11.07.2019. The Balance Sheet sought to be relied upon by the Respondents does not refect the presently prevailing facts. iii. Satra Properties (India) Ltd. - The Petitioner was a Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 201, 2nd Floor, DEV PLAZA, S.V. Road, Vileparle (West), Mumbai-400 058 bearing registration number as GSTIN-27AHZPS4559A3ZO, PAN- AHZPS4559A3 is a registered taxable person under SGST/CGST Act. Proceedings have been launched against the aforesaid taxable person under section 67 of the said Act to determine the tax or any other amount due from the said person. As per information available with the department, it has come to my notice that the said person has a current account in your bank having Account No.001101218141 (INR). In order to protect the interests of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 83 of the Act, I Dr. Amit Saini, I.A.S., Joint Commissioner State Tax, INV-A, Mumbai, hereby provisionally attach the aforesaid account. No debit shall be allowed to be made from the said account or any other account operated by the aforesaid person on the same PAN without the prior permission of this department. 17. From the above what is discernible is that according to respondent no.3, petitioner is a registered taxable person and proceedings have been launched against the petitioner under section 67 of the MGST Act to determine the tax or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se it is the property of the taxable person which is sought to be provisional attached. 21. Sub-section (2) of section 83 provides that such provisional attachment shall cease to have efect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of order made under sub-section (1). 22. Since the power under section 83 is vested in the Commissioner, it is necessary to refer to the defnition of Commissioner in the MGST Act. Section 2 (24) of the MGST Act defnes 'Commissioner' to mean the Commissioner of State Tax appointed under section 3 and includes the Principal Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of State Tax appointed under section 3. Though appointment of the Commissioner is made by the State Government under section 3, under sub-section (3) of section 5, the Commissioner may delegate his powers to any other ofcer who is subordinate to him, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specifed by him. 23. Since provisional attachment of the bank account of the petitioner has been made on the ground that proceedings have been launched against M/s. Praful Nanji Satra under section 67 of the MGST Act to determine the tax or any other amount due from the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Private Limited for the period from 01.07.2017 to till date. This summons to witness was issued under section 70 of the MGST Act read with the section 14 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 26. From the above, it is evident that the search and resultant investigation was carried out in respect of M/s. Prarush Impex. Authorization under section 67 was given in respect of M/s. Prarush Impex, that too by an ofcer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner though as per section 67 such authorization should be by a proper ofcer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner There is no such authorization under section 67 of the MGST Act in respect of M/s. Praful Nanji Satra. Shri Praful Nanji Satra was summoned under section 70 of the MGST Act to tender evidence as a witness in connection with proceedings under section 67 of the MGST Act and section 64 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 in the case of M/s. Satra Retail Private Limited which prima-facie is a diferent business entity distinct from M/s. Praful Nanji Satra. Thus, it is evident that there was no proceeding against M/s. Praful Nanji Satra or against Shri Praful Nanji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
