COROMANDEL AGRICO PVT LTD THROUGH ALPANA YAGNESH BAKTARWALA Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1578 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – [2019] 63 G S.T.R. 1 (Guj), 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 460 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 29-10-2018
R\/Special Civil Application No. 16731 of 2018
GST
Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi And Mr. Justice Umesh Trivedi
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr D K Trivedi
\nFor the Respondent : Advance Copy Served to Government Pleader\/PP, DS AFF.Not Filed (N), Notice Not Recd Back
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
\n1. Draft amendment is allowed.
\n2. The petitioner has challenged an order of attachment dated 09.10.2018 passed by the respondent authorities attaching the petitioner's plant, machinery and present stock situated at the said plant. The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing agrochemicals.
\n3. The facts admitted by the petitioner are that the petitioner could not discharge its GST liabilities for the past several mont<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n perate its factory since the date of passing of the order. The petitioner would not be able to pay its creditors and the workers their dues. The petitioner offered to clear all the taxes in installments. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n a further sum of Rs. 5.00 Lacs latest by 12.11.2018. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" COROMANDEL AGRICO PVT LTD THROUGH ALPANA YAGNESH BAKTARWALA Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERGST2018 (12) TMI 1578 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – [2019] 63 G S.T.R. 1 (Guj), 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 460 (Guj.)GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 29-10-2018R\/Special Civil Application No. 16731 of 2018 GSTMr. Justice Akil Kureshi And Mr. Justice Umesh Trivedi For … Continue reading “COROMANDEL AGRICO PVT LTD THROUGH ALPANA YAGNESH BAKTARWALA Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Learned AGP Shri Trivedi opposed the petition contending that the petitioner has not paid the selfassessed tax. Such tax has been collected from the purchasers. The petitioner cannot press financial hardship in depositing such tax with the Government revenue. The authorities have rightly exercised powers under Section 83 of the Act to protect the interest of Government revenue.
\n7. In the facts of the case, we would like to find a way out of the impasse so that the petitioner can restart its manufacturing activities and start repaying the Government dues. In this context, few things become relevant. Firstly, according to the petitioner, the outstanding dues are in the vicinity of Rs. 64.00 Lacs. This does not account for possible interest or penalty or late payment charges. The pet<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (II) The remaining amount, as per the petitioner's declaration, would be cleared in
\n Three Equal Monthly installments. The first one of them starting from the month of December 2018. Each installment shall have to be deposited by the Fifth of the month.
\n (III) The Director of the petitioner Company would file an Undertaking before this Court latest by 02.11.2018 that all these conditions would be fulfilled.
\n9. The attachment on the petitioner's stock, under the impugned order dated 09.10.2018, shall stand suspended. In other words, while maintaining the attachment on the plant and machinery, we permit the petitioner to carry out its manufacturing activities and clear the manufactured goods. Upon breach of any of the above condition nos.(I), (II) or (III), including failure to deposit any of the installments, such restrictions shall stand restored.
\n10. The petitioner shall cooperate with the proceedings for assessment or any oth<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n