M/S Amjok Auto Agencies vs. The Deputy Commissioner ,CGST, Shillong Division-I

Held

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit. Firstly, the Court noted that the petitioner, a different firm from the one against whom the order-in-original was passed, could not directly challenge the order-in-original. Secondly, the Court found that the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of the order-in-original was not credible, especially since a representation was not made immediately upon receipt of the attachment notice. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction does not support individuals who have slept over their perceived rights, noting the significant delay of nearly 10 months since the attachment notice. The Court dismissed the petition, leaving the relevant assessee and its officers free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The Court also permitted the writ petitioner firm to make a representation to the Department regarding its non-liability, which the Department was directed to consider, looking into the identity of persons in control of both firms.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Amjok Auto Agencies, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging an order of attachment of its bank account by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Shillong Division-I, dated September 27, 2022. The attachment was based on an order-in-original dated August 14, 2020, issued against Bhalang Associates. The petitioner argued that the bank account attached belonged to Amjok Auto Agencies and not Bhalang Associates, and that Bhalang Associates and its partners never received the order-in-original. It was revealed that a common partner was involved in both firms. The order-in-original stemmed from a show-cause notice issued on November 8, 2019, to which a reply was filed on December 9, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitioner, M/s Amjok Auto Agencies, can challenge an order of attachment of its bank account, which is based on an order-in-original issued against Bhalang Associates, given that a common partner is involved in both firms? 2. Whether the order-in-original dated August 14, 2020, was duly served upon Bhalang Associates and its partners, as required by law? Petitioner's arguments: The primary contention was that Bhalang Associates and its partners did not receive the order-in-original, rendering the subsequent attachment of Amjok Auto Agencies' bank account invalid. The petitioner also argued that the attached account belonged to Amjok Auto Agencies and not Bhalang Associates. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the common partner's involvement in both firms meant that the petitioner should have been aware of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Revenue argued that the petitioner had not acted promptly upon receiving the attachment notice, suggesting a delay in raising the grievance. The Revenue also clarified that Bhalang Associates was a proprietorship firm, not a partnership firm.