M/S Techno Craft Engineers Through Its Partner vs. The Commisssioner, CGST

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Techno Craft Engineers, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 5th April 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Class-II/AVATO Ward-101, Zone-09, Delhi. The Petitioner sought to assail this order, which led to the attachment of their bank account. During the proceedings, the Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that they had received communication from the Additional Standing Counsel, Government of NCT of Delhi. This communication clarified that the bank account attachment was due to demands of tax, interest, and penalty totaling Rs. 2,93,93,895/- raised in Form DVAT-24 and DVAT-24A for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17, and not due to a Show Cause Notice issued under GST DRC-01 dated 29.08.2023 by the Central GST Audit-II office.

Held

The Court noted the Petitioner's submission that they had received a communication clarifying the basis of the bank account attachment. This communication indicated that the attachment was due to demands of tax, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,93,93,895/- raised in Form DVAT-24 and DVAT-24A pertaining to assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The Petitioner's counsel, based on this clarification, sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. The Court took the communication on record and, accordingly, dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for. No specific finding was made on the validity of the DVAT demands themselves, as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bank account attachment by the Respondent authorities is valid, considering it is based on demands raised under the DVAT regime for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17, and not a GST-related proceeding as initially implied by the Petitioner's challenge? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner, through their counsel, indicated their intention to withdraw the petition upon receiving clarification that the bank account attachment was on account of demands under DVAT forms (DVAT-24 and DVAT-24A) for specific past assessment years, and not due to a recent GST show cause notice. They sought permission to withdraw with liberty to avail other remedies. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent's counsel did not present arguments as the Petitioner sought to withdraw the petition based on the clarification received regarding the nature of the demands leading to the bank account attachment.