Spnn Business Services PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax (GST), Delhi South & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, SPNN Business Services Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging provisional attachment orders dated February 9, 2021, issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax (GST), Delhi South. The petitioner had deposited original title deeds of five properties as per a court order dated March 5, 2021. The dispute pertained to the difference in tax between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filings. The revenue authorities had initiated proceedings leading to the attachment of properties. The tax period in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the liability discharged was up to December 2020.

Held

The Court held that the provisional attachment orders dated February 9, 2021, have become infructuous. This finding is based on the admission by the respondents' counsel that the petitioner has discharged its entire liability, including interest, for the difference in tax between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B up to December 2020. The Court accepted this statement and bound the respondents to it. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition as satisfied. The operative direction was for the respondents to release the original title deeds of the five properties deposited by the petitioner within three weeks, as per the order dated March 5, 2021. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in relation to the validity of the attachment orders, but the decision was based on the settlement of dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment orders dated February 9, 2021, remain valid and enforceable after the petitioner has discharged its entire liability along with applicable interest arising from the difference in tax between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B till December 2020? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that having paid the entire outstanding liability, the provisional attachment orders have become infructuous and should be withdrawn. The petitioner relied on the principle that once the tax dues are settled, the coercive measures taken for recovery should cease. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, through its counsel, admitted that the petitioner has discharged the entire liability along with applicable interest. The revenue also conceded that the provisional attachment orders have become infructuous in view of the full payment. The revenue did not advance any argument against the release of the attached properties.