Watermelon Management Services Private Limited vs. The Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Delhi (East) And Anr.
Held
The Court held that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, is applicable to the present case. This rule allows any person whose property is attached to file an objection within seven days of the attachment, stating that the property was or is not liable to attachment. The Commissioner, after providing an opportunity of being heard, may release the property. The Court relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Pranit Hem Desai vs. Additional Director General, which held that the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Rule 159(5) makes it reluctant to entertain writ petitions under Article 226. Therefore, the Court directed Respondent No. 1 to treat the present writ petition as an objection filed under Rule 159(5) and decide it within three working days. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.
Facts
The petitioner, Watermelon Management Services Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order dated March 5, 2020, issued by the Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Delhi (East) (Respondent No. 1) to the petitioner's bankers. The petitioner contended that the attachment order under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act, 2017) was invalid as no notice under Section 74 of the Act, 2017 had been issued. The respondents were represented by counsel who accepted notice. The Court noted the urgency and heard the matter via video conferencing.
Key Issues
1. Whether a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, can be passed in the absence of a notice issued under Section 74 of the Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order was illegal and without authority of law because no proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act had been initiated against them. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court referred to Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which provides a remedy for filing objections against attachment, and a precedent from the Gujarat High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 83, Rule 159(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2020 The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.
The matter has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the provisional attachment order dated 05th March, 2020 issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner’s bankers. Learned counsel for petitioner states that in the absence of any notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2017’), no order of attachment under Section 83 of the Act, 2017 could have been passed by the respondents.
Issue notice. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel accepts n
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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.