Jay Maa Lakhu Petroleum vs. State Of Gujarat
Facts
The petitioner, Jay Maa Lakhu Petroleum, a petroleum dealer, is challenging an order dated 11.08.2021 by respondent no. 3, directing the attachment of its bank account. Further, it challenges directions issued on 19.08.2019 to IOCL Petroleum Company to stop petroleum product supply. The petitioner claims these actions are arbitrary. The petitioner attributes non-payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to its lawyer and Chartered Accountant, who allegedly misled VAT authorities. Two FIRs have been lodged: one on 07.08.2021 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and another on 14.10.2021 by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, naming the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a representation on 13.09.2021 seeking installments for tax liability.
Held
The Court chose not to enter into the merits of the matter due to the pendency of criminal complaints. It directed respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2021, which requests installments for tax liability and the withdrawal of instructions to IOCL. This consideration is to be done within two weeks from the receipt of the writ, in accordance with the law, and without being influenced by the disposal of the present petition. The Court noted that if the outcome of this representation is unfavorable to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to avail further legal recourse. The Court explicitly stated it was not fixing any liability by virtue of the investigation carried out in accordance with law before the authority concerned decides the representation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 11.08.2021, directing attachment of the petitioner's bank account, and the directions dated 19.08.2019 to stop petroleum supply are sustainable in law, particularly in light of the pendency of FIRs against the petitioner and its representatives? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory powers). Petitioner's arguments: The actions of attaching the bank account and stopping supply are arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to quash these orders and direct the withdrawal of instructions to IOCL. It also seeks directions for sympathetic consideration of its representation for payment installments. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or State regarding the sustainability of the impugned orders. However, the State is represented by the Assistant Government Pleader.
Sections Cited
Section 406, Section 420, Section 465, Section 467, Section 468, Section 471, Section 167, Section 120(B), Section 13(1)(b), Section 13(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
The petitioner is engaged in the business of petroleum dealership. It is aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the respondent no.3 on 11.08.2021 whereby the directions are issued to the banker of the petitioner to attach the bank account. The further directions also have gone on 19.08.2019 to the IOCL Petroleum Company to stop the supply of the petroleum product to the petitioner which, accordin
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.