Snesh Resort PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Snesh Resort Pvt. Ltd., filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging a recovery letter dated March 18, 2021, which resulted in the freezing of its bank accounts. The petitioner had made statutory deposits along with appeals filed before the Commissioner of Appeals and subsequently before the Tribunal. Despite these appeals and the stay on further recoveries, the recovery letter was issued. The petitioner submitted a representation dated April 1, 2021, to the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Division X, Nadiad (respondent no. 2), requesting the withdrawal of the recovery letter. The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court for the respondent authority to consider and decide this representation expeditiously.

Held

The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the petition by issuing a direction to respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Division X, Nadiad. The Court directed the respondent authority to take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law on the pending representation dated April 1, 2021. This decision was to be made within a period of one week from the date of submission of a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court also permitted Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG, to communicate this order to respondent no. 2 for compliance. The petition was disposed of with this specific direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Division X, Nadiad, should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated April 1, 2021, expeditiously, in light of the fact that statutory deposits have been made and appeals are pending before higher authorities, with recoveries of the demand stayed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite having made statutory deposits and having obtained a stay on recoveries during the pendency of appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal, the respondent authority issued a recovery letter leading to the freezing of its bank accounts. Therefore, the representation seeking withdrawal of this recovery letter should be considered and decided promptly. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue or state regarding the petitioner's representation or the issuance of the recovery letter.