M/S.Indu Enterprises vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy for the petitioner to approach the competent authority against the provisional attachment order. The Court found that the petitioner's counsel could not demonstrate any valid grounds for bypassing the statutory remedy. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed at this stage solely on the ground of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy. The Court explicitly left open the option for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy if they were so advised. No decision was made on the merits of the attachment itself.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Indu Enterprises, challenged the provisional attachment of its bank account by Respondent No. 3, vide proceedings dated 08.02.2024. This attachment was made under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment notes that the petitioner has a statutory remedy to approach the Commissioner and file an objection under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner's counsel could not argue that the case fell under any recognized exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, when an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner did not argue that their case fell within any well-recognized exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies. Respondent's contention: The respondents implicitly argued for the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Rule 159(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
APHC010183552024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3481] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9475/2024 Between: M/s.indu Enterprises ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
N.RAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri N. Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Junior Standing Counsel for C.B.I.C. for the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings of the respondent No.3, F.No.DGGI/INV/GST/3253/2023 – Gr J, dated 08.02.2024 of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account. The said attachment is provisional
attachment under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has the remedy to approach the Commissioner and file objection
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.