M/S Wave Agro Oils vs. Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Another

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's representation for the supply of documents was pending before respondent no. 3. Regarding the bank account attachment, the Court found no inherent lack of jurisdiction in issuing the order under Section 67 of the Central GST Act, 2017, as it was issued on the date of the search. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that an opportunity of hearing was denied, but observed that a post-decisional hearing was to be afforded by respondent no. 3. The petitioner had already filed a written objection on March 25, 2021, which was received by respondent no. 3. Similarly, the petitioner's representation for the refund of cash seized was also pending. Therefore, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter-affidavit at that stage. The Court directed respondent no. 3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's objection dated March 25, 2021, expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, after affording due opportunity of hearing. The issue of returning the amount of Rs. 14,99,552/- was implicitly linked to the decision on the petitioner's objection and refund representation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Wave Agro Oils, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus for the supply of documents related to a Panchnama dated January 14, 2021, and to set aside the attachment of its bank account. The attachment order, dated January 14, 2021, was issued on the same day a search was conducted at the petitioner's premises under Section 67 of the Central GST Act, 2017. The petitioner also sought the return of Rs. 14,99,552/- allegedly illegally taken by the respondent department. The petitioner had filed a written objection on March 25, 2021, which was received by respondent no. 3 on April 1, 2021. A representation for the refund of seized cash was also pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to supply documents mentioned in the Panchnama dated January 14, 2021, for statutory compliances, as per Section 67 of the Central GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, ordered on January 14, 2021, is liable to be set aside due to lack of jurisdiction or denial of an opportunity of hearing, as per principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of Rs. 14,99,552/-, which it claims was illegally taken by the respondent department? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the attachment order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and sought the supply of necessary documents for compliance. They also claimed the amount seized was illegal. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent department initiated the search and attachment under Section 67 of the Central GST Act, 2017. They argued that the attachment order was within their jurisdiction and that a post-decisional hearing was to be afforded.