M/S. Utkarsh Ispat LLP vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed objections well within time under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, and the Commissioner had afforded an opportunity of hearing. However, the Commissioner had not yet passed an order on these objections. The Court observed that the non-passing of an order by the Commissioner was the reason for the petitioner approaching the High Court. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner to pass an order on the petitioner's objections within three days. The Court also stated that any further actions by the respondents, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the outcome of the order, would be permissible under the law. The present application was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Utkarsh Ispat LLP, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging the provisional attachment of its bank accounts, plant and machinery, and factory premises. The attachment was made by Respondent No. 3 under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, following search proceedings under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. The allegations were that the petitioner availed Input Tax Credit on fake invoices without actual movement of goods. The petitioner's objections, filed under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, were not addressed by the authorities, hindering the petitioner's business operations, including salary payments to employees and GST liabilities. The petitioner sought to quash the attachment orders and direct the release of attached assets.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's assets made by Respondent No. 3 under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, is valid, considering the petitioner's objections filed under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules have not been decided within the stipulated time? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment was made dehors the provisions of Section 83 of the CGST Act and Gujarat GST Act, 2017. They contended that their objections, filed under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, were not attended to by the authorities, preventing them from continuing business operations, meeting salary obligations, and paying GST. The petitioner also highlighted that the worth of their movable and immovable properties significantly exceeded any potential statutory liability. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue or State respondents.