M/S Shubham Consultants Through Proprietor Shri Vinay Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to the petitioner to take steps before the appropriate authority as available in law. The Court directed that if the petitioner takes any steps, the concerned authority will decide the matter in accordance with law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the seizure of the bank account, as the primary outcome was the withdrawal of the petition by the petitioner. No specific issues were decided on their merits; the decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shubham Consultants, approached the Patna High Court through a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18416 of 2018. The petitioner sought relief from an assessment order passed on April 10, 2015. Following this order, a notice was issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1991, leading to the seizure of the petitioner's bank account by the Lead Bank Manager. The petitioner's counsel, after some arguments, sought permission to withdraw the application before the High Court to pursue remedies before the appropriate authority. The Union of India's counsel acknowledged the assessment order and the subsequent actions taken.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate authority, given the stage of proceedings and the actions taken by the revenue authorities. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to take steps before the appropriate authority, implying a desire to pursue alternative legal remedies. The petitioner did not explicitly argue for the quashing of the assessment order or the release of the bank account within the context of the withdrawal request. Revenue's Contention: The Union of India's counsel stated that an assessment order was passed on April 10, 2015, and a notice under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1991, was issued to the Lead Bank Manager, resulting in the seizure of the petitioner's bank account. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal but highlighted the procedural steps taken.
Sections Cited
Section 87
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18416 of 2018 ====================================================== M/s Shubham Consultants through Proprietor Shri Vinay Kumar, Akanksha Meera Place 201, Mundar Shah Path, Khajpura, Bahar Veterinary College Campus, Patna (Bihar)-800014. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and GST - 1 Commissioner Patna, Bihar.
The Joint Commissioner P and U Central Control Excise and Service Tax Hqrs (Office of the Commission of Central Excise & Service Tax), C.R. Building, B.C. Patel Path, Patna-1. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Gaya Division, Gaya.
The Assistant Commissioner, C.G.S.T Central Division, Patna - 1. 6. The Superintendent of Central Excise and Servic Tax Range, Phulwarisharif, 09, Adarsh Colony, Kidwa
The Superintendent of Adjudication, Central Excise and Service Tax, Central Revenue Building, B.C.P Marg, Patna-1. 8. The Range Officer, Central Excise and Service Tax, Central Revenue Building,
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 Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.