M/S Shree Krishna Abodes PVT. LTD. vs. Superintendent, Central Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court held that the action of the respondent in attaching the bank account without providing a copy of the assessment order was a matter of concern. While not explicitly ruling on the legality of the attachment itself, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-receipt of the assessment order. The Court directed the assessing authority to provide a copy of the assessment order to the petitioner within seven days of the petitioner approaching him with a copy of the High Court's order. Following this, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal before the first appellate authority and seek an appropriate interim order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the validity of the bank account attachment, focusing instead on facilitating the petitioner's access to the order and their appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Krishna Abodes Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, aggrieved by the action of the respondent assessing authority. The petitioner contended that the respondent had attached their bank account without providing them with a copy of the assessment order. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court directly due to the alleged lack of a copy of the assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent assessing authority acted arbitrarily and illegally by attaching the petitioner's bank account without providing a copy of the assessment order, thereby violating principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the attachment of the bank account was premature and illegal as they were not furnished with the assessment order, which is a prerequisite for challenging it and for the revenue to initiate recovery proceedings. The petitioner contended that this action prevented them from availing their statutory remedy of appeal. The respondent's arguments were not recorded in the judgment.