9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishra a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Rupesh Dubey and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra. P.C. : 1. On 26th September 2023 the following order came to be passed : Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, has a serious objection to the Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeking discretionary reliefs in relation to the attachment notice as issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act. Mr. Mishra submits that the Petitioner is a bogus person and a substantial amount of about Rs. 21 crores was deposited in his account which is attached by the Respondent. The Petitioner is stated to be a labourer and without having any source of business has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as prayed for. It is his submission that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and with appropriate disclosures. If that be the case, this Court would not entertain any frivolous and bogus pleas. The Respondent Revenue would be required to be granted an opportunity to place on record reply so that further appropriate orders can be passed after hearing the parties. 2. Let rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Court wherein he stated that he has waived of his right for personal hearing. The Writ was disposed by this Hon'ble Court vide its Order dated 02.05.2023 directing the Respondents to decide the objection (s) filed by the petitioner within two weeks, without granting personal hearing, on merits. Hereto annexed and marked as an Ex H is the copy of Order dated 02.05.2023. 16. In compliance of this Hon'ble Court's Order dated 02.05.2023, the objections stated to be filed by Shri Chotu Lal, Proprietor of M/s Wisemax Enterprises has been decided by the competent authority on 16.05.2023. The decision of the competent authority vide this office letter dated 16.05.2023 was sent to the CGST Thane officers for delivery to Shri Chotu Lal, M/s Wisemax Enterprises, SH- 42/UB, Sai Krupa Mall, Opp. Raliway Station, LT Road, Dahisar West, Mumbai. However, no such firm or/and person was found to be operating from the above said address. The proceedings were recorded under Panchnama dated 01.06.2023. Further, upon telephonic verification the shop owner confirmed that the said shop was vacant since Sh. Veerpal Singh Banjara vacated the shop in around August, 2022. Hereto annexed and mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wisemax in Mumbai or any other place; that he admits his mistake that in greed of Rs. 10000/- only he opened a bank account in Mumbai and handed over to Shri Dileep Singh; that whatever money has come into the said account is not his; that he received many letters which were shown to Shri Dileep Singh who advised him to remain silent and stay at home. 19. These Respondents have sent copy of letter dated 10.01.2023 vide which objection under Rule 159 (5) had been filed, Account Opening Form of Bank Account and copy of Verification Form (found in the Writ Petition No.5796 of 2023) all bearing signatures of Shri Chotu Lal and Statement dated 29.05.2023 of Shri Chotu Lal for forensic examination with regard to matching of signature(s) on the said documents. Forensic Expert in its Examination Report(s) dated 22.06.2023 furnished report to the effect that the signatures on Statement dated 29.05.2023 and Bank Account Opening Form were of the same person. Whereas the signature (s) on letter dated 10.01.2023 vide which objection under Rule 159 (5) were filed and Verification Form (part of Writ Petition No.5796 of 2023/Page No.43 of the said Writ) were not matching with the signatures of Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that petitioner had filed a representation dated 10th January 2023 under Section 159 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and notice of personal hearing to petitioner was also issued in respect of representation filed by petitioner under Section 159 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. It is also stated that petitioner was also issued summons dated 18th January 2023 to appear on 30th January 2023 alongwith documents in support of business activities resulting in the transactions in the said Account but petitioner neither appeared against summons nor appeared for personal hearing or submitted any documents or income tax returns. Therefore, another letter dated 3rd February 2023 was issued to petitioner recording his non appearance for personal hearing and in view of his non appearance or any communication from his side, no further action would be taken on his representation. Copy of the communication is also annexed to the affidavit in reply. Still there is not even a denial by petitioner to any of these allegations. That would only lead to a conclusion that petitioner has suppressed these facts in the petition filed. Moreover, in the affidavit in rejoind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner, i.e., Chotu Lal, has signed in English. Mr. Pathak has no explanation for this even though Mr. Pathak has identified Chotu Lal and has also signed both petition as well as affidavit in rejoinder. For ease of reference, the portion of verification clause, where petitioner has signed in Devanagari script and page 335 of the affidavit in rejoinder, where petitioner has signed in English, are scanned and reproduced hereinbelow : 6. In rejoinder, petitioner has stated that his permanent address is at Rajasthan and at the time of filing rejoinder he is at Mumbai whereas in paragraph 1 of the petition he has stated that he is carrying on business at the address mentioned in cause title which is at Dahisar, Mumbai. This contradiction coupled with what is stated by respondents in their reply on petitioner being non-genuine goes on to indicate that petitioner is playing fraud not only on the Revenue but also on this Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the present matter. 7. In the circumstances, in our view, this is not a case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petition d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
