9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons are forthcoming in the impugned order. Interestingly respondents have themselves stated that the aforesaid supplier had obtained registration and the same was cancelled only on 20.06.2024 and since the transaction between the petitioner and supplier was prior to 20.06.2024, the respondents clearly fell in error in describing/categorizing the supplier as non-existent or not to be conducting any business at the time of transaction with the petitioner. The impugned order dated 14.08.2024 deserves to the quashed - Petition allowed. - THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI. SURENDRAN J G THUMBUCHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS : BY SRI. HEMAKUMAR K., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. M. UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (A) The Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order No.22(State)/2023-24 dated 17-10-2023 passed by the First Respondent under Rule 86 of the CGST/SGST Rules (Annexure - A ). (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants by the respondentsrevenue prior to passing the impugned orders blocking the ECL of the appellants and consequently, the said findings recorded by the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside. 9. The next point that arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents-revenue were justified in passing the impugned orders blocking the Electronic Credit Ledgers of the appellants by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules which mandates that the respondents-revenue should have reasons to believe that the ITC available in the ECL was fraudulently availed or was ineligible as contemplated in the said provision; in this regard, the learned Single Judge noticed that 2 pre-requisites/conditions had to be satisfied/fulfilled before invocation of Rule 86A and blocking the ECL of the appellants and held as under : 18. The first requisite of the Rule which is required to be considered by the competent authority is with regard to the basis of material available before he taking any action for blocking of electronic credit ledger. The second pre-requisite is of recording the reasons in writing for invoking the powers under Rule 86A of the Rules of 2017. Unless the aforesaid two pre-req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the respondents themselves in the CBEC Circular dated 02.11.2021, the relevant portions are as under: 3.1.2 Perusal of the rule makes it clear that the Commissioner, or an officer authorised by him, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, must have reasons to believe that credit of input tax available in the electronic credit ledger is either ineligible or has been fraudulently availed by the registered person, before disallowing the debit of amount from electronic credit ledger of the said registered person under rule 86A. The reasons for such belief must be based only on one or more of the following grounds: a) The credit is availed by the registered person on the invoices or debit notes issued by a supplier, who is found to be non-existent or is found not to be conducting any business from the place declared in registration. b) The credit is availed by the registered person on invoices or debit notes, without actually receiving any goods or services or both. c) The credit is availed by the registered person on invoices or debit notes, the tax in respect of which has not been paid to the government. d) The registered person claiming the credit is found to be non-exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mind as to whether there are reasons to believe that the input tax credit availed by the registered person has either been fraudulently availed or is ineligible, as per conditions/ grounds mentioned in sub-rule (1) of rule 86A and whether disallowing such debit of electronic credit ledger of the said person is necessary for restricting him from utilizing/ passing on fraudulently availed or ineligible input tax credit to protect the interests of revenue. Such Reasons to believe shall be duly recorded by the concerned officer in writing on file, before he proceeds to disallow debit of amount from electronic credit ledger of the said person. 9.4 It is clear from the aforesaid CBIC Circular that the respondents-revenue must form an opinion for disallowing debit of an amount from electronic credit ledger in respect of a registered person, only after proper application of mind considering all the facts of the case, including the nature of prima facie fraudulently availed or ineligible input tax credit and whether the same is covered under the grounds mentioned in Rule 86A(1). As stated earlier, Rule 86A, which in effect is the power to block ECL is drastic in nature which creates a disab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received from other officers, without any independent application of mind. This shows that exercise of power under Rule 86A was not because he was independently satisfied about the need for blocking the ECL but, was due to the fact that he felt compelled to obey the command of another officer. This is not the manner in which the law expects the power under rule 86A to be exercised. When a thing is directed to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all is the well-established principle of administrative law. On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is crystal clear that the order to block the ECL provisionally was out of the borrowed satisfaction of the respondent authorities rather than based on any independent analysis. 9.8 As stated supra, the impugned order discloses that the same has been passed mechanically and is based on borrowed satisfaction and does not meet the test of formation of an opinion of the Assessing Officer who seems to have been influenced by the findings of the Investigation Wing [i.e, Field visit report by the Asst. State Tax Officer, Vasco-D-Gama, (Goa)] and have not independently formed an opinion on the likely additions to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (10) for the issuance of an order in sub-section (9). Sub-section (11) stipulates that upon service of an order under subsection (9), all proceedings in respect of the notice shall be deemed to be concluded upon the person paying the tax with interest under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to 50 per cent of the tax within thirty days of the communication of an order. These provisions indicate how sub-sections (5), (8) and (11) operate at different stages of the process. 49. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to emphasise that before the Commissioner can levy a provisional attachment, there must be a formation of the opinion and that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. The power to levy a provisional attachment is draconian in nature. By the exercise of the power, a property belonging to the taxable person may be attached, including a bank account. The attachment is provisional and the statute has contemplated an attachment during the pendency of the proceedings under the stipulated statutory provisions noticed earlier. An attachment which is contemplated in Section 83 is, in other words, at a stage which is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is yet to be crystallised. An anticipatory attachment of this nature must strictly conform to the requirements, both substantive and procedural, embodied in the statute and the rules.The exercise of unguided discretion cannot be permissible because it will leave citizens and their legitimate business activities to the peril of arbitrary power. Each of these ingredients must be strictly applied before a provisional attachment on the property of an assessee can be levied. The Commissioner must be alive to the fact that such provisions are not intended to authorise Commissioners to make pre-emptive strikes on the property of the assessee, merely because property is available for being attached. There must be a valid formation of the opinion that a provisional attachment is necessary for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. 51. These expressions in regard to both the purpose and necessity of provisional attachment implicate the doctrine of proportionality. Proportionality mandates the existence of a proximate or live link between the need for the attachment and the purpose which it is intended to secure. It also postulates the maintenance of a proportion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o defeat the claim of the Revenue in case any order is passed against the dealer under the VAT Act and/or the dealer is likely to sale his properties and/or sale and/or dispose of the properties and in case after the conclusion of the assessment/reassessment proceedings, if there is any tax liability, the Revenue may not be in a position to recover the amount thereafter, in such a case only, however, on formation of subjective satisfaction/opinion, the Commissioner may exercise the powers under Section 45 of the VAT Act. 72. It is evident from the facts noted above that the order of provisional attachment was passed before the proceedings against the appellant were initiated under Section 74 of the Hpgst Act. Section 83 of the Act requires that there must be pendency of proceedings under the relevant provisions mentioned above against the taxable person whose property is sought to be attached. We are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that merely because proceedings were pending/concluded against another taxable entity, that is, GM Powertech, the powers of Section 83 could also be attracted against the appellant. This interpretation would be an expansion of a draconi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2021, the order of provisional attachment must come to an end. 11. The said judgment which was passed while dealing with identical provisions under the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules made there under was followed by this Court in the context of Section 281B of the I.T. Act by this Court in Indian Minerals Case (supra), wherein it was held as under:- 8. As held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, mere apprehension on the part of the respondents that huge tax demands are likely to be raised on completion of assessment is not sufficient for the purpose of passing a provisional order of attachment. It has also been held that apart from the fact that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the provisional attachment order was maintainable, having regard to the fact that the provisional attachment order of a property of a taxable person including the bank account of such person is draconian in nature and the conditions which are prescribed by the statute for the valid exercise of power must be strictly fulfilled, the exercise of power for order of provisional attachment must necessarily be preceded by formation of an opinion by the authorities that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and possess immovable property to the tune of more than Rs.300 crores, the said apprehension of the respondents is clearly unfounded and without any basis and consequently, the said apprehension of the respondents cannot be accepted . 12. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the same is arbitrary and reflects premeditated conclusion without recording either an opinion or necessary to attach the property; the doctrine of proportionality which is implicated in the purpose and necessity of provisional attachment mandates the existence of a proximate or a live link between the need for the attachment and the purpose which it is intended to secure. 13. Further, mere apprehension that huge tax demands are likely to be raised on completion of assessment is not sufficient for the purpose of passing a provisional attachment order and the exercise of the same must necessarily be preceded by the formation of an opinion that it was necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue, that too on the basis of tangible material that the petitioner was not likely to fulfil the demand and on the other hand, was likely to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are satisfied that the said independent arrival of opinion that there was a reason to believe is not found forthcoming from the order issued blocking the said credit and it is entirely based on the satisfaction of another officer; it is quite possible that the transaction, when entered into in 2017 or 2018 could be genuine and when the officer visits in 2020 or 2021, the business could have been closed and therefore the mere closure of business in 2020 or 2021 cannot be a basis for denying credit availed earlier. All these factors required that the respondents-revenue ought to have carefully considered and verified all aspects before taking such a drastic action of blocking credit under Rule 86A which is yet another circumstance that would vitiate the impugned order. 9.11 The aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient to come to the unmistakable conclusion that in the absence of valid nor sufficient material which constituted reasons to believe which was available with respondents, the mandatory requirements/prerequisites/ ingredients/parameters contained in Rule 86A had not been fulfilled/satisfied by the respondentsrevenue who were clearly not entitled to place reliance upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
