9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents are to be directed to return back the said documents, especially when the petitioner is into real estate business and the documents are required for the purpose of its business. Under these circumstances, though the order of seizure dated 09.01.2024 does not require to be interfered with in the light of the issuance of the pre-show cause notice intimation and the show cause notice issued by the respondents, suffice it to state that direction are to be issued to the respondents to return back all the documents seized by them vide Annexure-E dated 09.01.2024. Insofar as the impugned provisional bank attachment orders at Annexures-L1, L2 and L3 dated 28.05.2024 are concerned, in the light of the specific contention of the petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd Respondent (Annexure - V) under Section 74 of the CGST Act. 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 09.01.2024, the respondent No. 3 conducted a search in the petitioner's Bangalore office by invoking Section 67 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 pursuant to which, the summons were issued to the proprietor of the petitioner, who submitted a letter on 06.02.2024 requesting release of original documents which were required for the purpose of business of the petitioner. On 28.05.2024, the respondent No.1 had provisionally attached the bank account of the petitioner to the Punjab National Bank, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are to be returned to the petitioner for the purpose of enabling it to carry on his business. It is also submitted that the order of seizure has spent/exhausted itself by issuance a pre-show cause notice intimation and the show cause notice and consequently, necessary directions have to be issued to the respondents to return the original papers, documents etc., back to the petitioner, which was seized by them 5. Learned Senior counsel would also submit that out of the aforesaid demand of Rs. 5,10,47,405/-, the petitioner had also discharged a sum of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- by making payments in the States of Karnataka and Telangana and the respondents are not entitled to demand the very same amount by way of the impugned pre-show cause notice int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents seized by them vide Annexure-E dated 09.01.2024. 8. Insofar as the impugned provisional bank attachment orders at Annexures-L1, L2 and L3 dated 28.05.2024 are concerned, in the light of the specific contention of the petitioner that out of the total alleged liability of Rs. 5,10,47,405/-, the petitioner has only discharged Rs. 3,60,00,000/- in the States of Karnataka and Telangana coupled with the interim order passed by this Court on 21.08.2024 staying the attachment of bank accounts, without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed further after taking appropriate decision in pursuance of the show cause notice, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the provisional bank attachment order reserving liberty in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
