Tulsi Petroleum vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Tulsi Petroleum, a registered dealer engaged in the petroleum business, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 11.08.2021 passed by respondent no. 3, directing the attachment of its bank account. The petitioner attributed the non-payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to its lawyer and Chartered Accountant, alleging they acted in connivance and misled tax authorities. The petition sought to quash the attachment order and requested the court to direct respondent no. 2 to sympathetically consider its representation dated 13.09.2021 for payment of tax liability in installments. The court noted the pendency of two FIRs, one lodged on 07.08.2021 and another on 14.10.2021, in which the petitioner was named.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case due to the pendency of criminal complaints. Regarding the first issue, the Court did not explicitly rule on the arbitrariness of the attachment order but implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's grievance by directing consideration of its representation. On the second issue, the Court directed respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2021, which sought installments for tax payment and potentially the withdrawal of instructions to the petroleum company. This consideration was to be done within two weeks of receiving the court's order, in accordance with the law, and without being influenced by the disposal of the present petition. The Court stated that if the outcome of this consideration disfavors the petitioner, they would be at liberty to pursue legal recourse. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the tax liability and the validity of the attachment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by respondent no. 3, directing the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, is arbitrary and unsustainable under law, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the attachment was arbitrary and sought its quashing. The revenue's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2021, requesting installments for payment of tax liability, should be sympathetically considered by respondent no. 2, given the peculiar facts of the case, including the alleged connivance of its legal and financial advisors and the pendency of FIRs? The petitioner argued for installment payments due to the circumstances. The revenue's stance on this representation is not detailed.