M/s H.M. INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1452 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 324 (Guj.) , [2020] 72 G S.T.R. 119 (Guj)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-2-2019
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1160 of 2019
GST
MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ.
For The Petitioner (s) : ANANDODAYA S MISHRA (8038)
For The Respondent (s) : MR NIRZAR S DESAI (2117)
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
Rule. Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to release all the bank accounts of the petitioner, as shown in paragraph12 of the memorandum of petition.
3. Vide order dated 06.02.2019, this Court had directed the respondent to forthwith release the attachment on the petitioner's cash credit acc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
00 maintained with the Bank of Baroda.
6. Heard Mr. A.S. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had reversed the input tax credit of Rs. 12,99,32,058/, against the total input tax credit taken in respect of M/s. Om Enterprises, M/s. Shivay Enterprises and M/s. Avi Enterprises. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already paid the initial demand of GST to the tune of Rs. 7,51,01,066/. Thus, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, in all, an amount of Rs. 13,52,00,000/stands reversed.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, under instructions, states that, in all, a sum of Rs. 13,28,00,000/has been paid, either by way of reversal or otherwise. He, however, has submitted that as of now, the amount due and payable by the petitioner is Rs. 16.24 crores, out of which, o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eedings under section 67, 73 or 74 of the Act.
11. Under section 83 of the CGST Act, the Commissioner is empowered to order provisional attachment for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue. In the facts of the present case, while a liability of Rs. 14.62 crores had been estimated at the time when the order under section 83 of the CGST Act came to be passed, the present estimate is Rs. 16.24 crores. Thus, the petitioner, upon conclusion of any proceedings that may be taken pursuant to the proceedings under sections 67, 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, may be liable to pay such amount. Admittedly, the petitioner has already reversed input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 13,28,00,000/. In the opinion of this Court, considering the amount paid by reversing input tax credit, the interest of the Revenue is sufficiently secured. Therefore, the provisional attachment of the above referred bank accounts of the petitioner is no longer justified.
12. For the foregoing reasons,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =