IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Neutron Steel Trading Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner CGST, Central Ex Commissionerate, Delhi West - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6609 of 2020
Decided On : 18-09-2020
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 23038/2020
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 6609/2020 & CM APPL. 23040/2020
1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the provisional attachment order dated 14th August, 2020 issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner's bankers.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the present case the sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 83 of CGST Act is absent as there is no proceeding pending under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of CGST Act.
4. Issue notice.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 reads as under:
"159. Provisional attachment of property.--
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Any person whose property is attached may, within seven days of the attachment under sub-rule (1), file an objection to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment and the Commissioner may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the person filing the objection, release the said property by an order in FORM GST DRC-23."
6. A Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Pranit Hem Desai vs. Additional Director General, C/SCA/7321/2019 dated 12th April, 2019 has held as under:
"1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioners. A perusal of the notices dated 4.4.2019 issued by the Deputy Director, DGGI, AZU, it is evident that while attaching the bank accounts in exercise of powers under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the said authority has brought to the notice of the petitioners, the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to the effect that it is open for the petitioners to C/SCA/7321/2019 ORDER file objection to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment, within seven days of attachment under sub-rule (1) of rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 before the competent authority.
2. Mr. D. K. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioners has invited the attention of the court to the order dated 3.4.2019 in Form GST DRC-22 under rule 159 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to point out that in terms of the said order, proceedings have been launched against the petitioners under section 74 of the CGST Act. It was submitted that no proceeding under section 74 of the CGST Act has been initiated against the petitioners till date and hence, the action under section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 is without authority of law.
3. In the opinion of this court, when the communications dated 4.4.2019 of the Deputy Director, DGGI, AZU itself informs the petitioners that the petitioners have a remedy against the order of attachment by way of filing objection under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, this court would be reluctant to entertain these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent authority before whom all the contentions raised in the present petitions can be raised. This court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain these petitions.
4. In the above view of the matter, the petitions are dismissed as not entertained in the light of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy under sub-rule (5) of rule C/SCA/7321/2019 ORDER 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
5. In terms of the communication dated 4.4.2019 of the Deputy Director, DGGI, AZU, the petitioners are requ
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.