Order of attachment quashed for SCN

Case Covered:

M/s. V.N.Mehta & Company

Versus

The Assistant Commissioner

Read the full text of the case here.

Facts of the case:

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.08.2019 addressed to the fourth respondent through which, the fourth respondent was directed to recover a sum of Rs.53,28,645/- from the account maintained by the petitioner on the reason that the said sum on account of tax, cess, interest, and penalty is payable by the petitioner under the provisions of the GST Act and that the petitioner had failed to make such payment.

  The grievance of the petitioner against the impugned proceedings is that the same was issued straightaway, even before making an assessment or at least initiating proceedings for making the assessment. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no proceedings whatsoever was issued against the petitioner for determining either the tax, cess or interest or penalty totally amounting to Rs.53,28,645/- as claimed in the impugned proceedings. Therefore, it is contended that Section 79 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, cannot be invoked by the first respondent to recover the said sum as if, such sum is an arrear payable by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that though a statement was obtained from the petitioner on 19.06.2019, by the Superintendent of GST, stating as if the petitioner availed input credit during the period from June – 2018 to October – 2018 on the strength of invoices of fake units, the said statement was subsequently retracted by the petitioner through a communication dated 26.06.2019, specifically, by stating that the petitioner’s answer is to be read as that they have so far taken ITC of Rs.53,28,645/- for goods received along with invoices.

Observations of the court:

In this case, as admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, no such proceedings are pending as on today under any of the above provisions. Therefore, I am of the view that Section 83 also would not come to the rescue of the respondent to sustain the impugned proceedings.

Thus, I find that the impugned proceedings are not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. However, it is made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the allegation made by the respondent against the petitioner, as it is for them to adjudicate the matter in a manner known to law. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Download the copy: