M/S Sri Ram Structural Steel LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Sri Ram Structural Steel Ltd., filed an objection under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules on February 18, 2021, challenging an order dated January 29, 2021, which attached its bank accounts. The Petitioner sought a disposal of this objection by Opposite Party No. 4, the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Rourkela, Dist.-Sundargarh. The Petitioner requested that the objection be decided after a hearing, with a reasoned order to be issued no later than November 1, 2021, and a copy provided to the Petitioner by November 8, 2021. The High Court was considering this writ petition.

Held

The Court directed that the Petitioner's objection, filed under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules on February 18, 2021, against the order dated January 29, 2021, attaching its bank accounts, shall be disposed of by Opposite Party No. 4 (Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Rourkela, Dist.-Sundargarh). The disposal must occur after providing the Petitioner with a hearing and must result in a reasoned order. The Court stipulated that this reasoned order should be issued no later than November 1, 2021, and a copy made available to the Petitioner no later than November 8, 2021. The Court also noted that if the Petitioner remains aggrieved by the order passed by the authority, it would be open to pursue appropriate legal remedies. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court provided clear directions for the disposal of the pending objection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a reasoned order on its objection filed under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules against the attachment of its bank accounts, and within what timeframe? The Petitioner argued that it had duly filed an objection against the attachment order and sought a direction for its timely disposal by the concerned authority. The Petitioner contended that a reasoned order, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing, was necessary to address its grievance. The Revenue (Union of India and others) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the Petitioner's entitlement to a reasoned order or the timeline for its disposal. The core of the Petitioner's plea was procedural fairness and the expeditious resolution of its objection.