Case Law Details
Enprocon Enterprise Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment of the immovable property under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner was hereby quashed and set aside.
Held: Assessee-company was registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The office premises of assessee situated at Ahmedabad and Baroda were raided by the Authorities, in exercise of their powers, under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017. Later, an order of provisional attachment of the immovable property came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax in exercise of powers, under Section 83. The only question that fell for consideration, was whether the order of provisional attachment passed by Assistant Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the GGST Act, 2017, was sustainable in law. It was held Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the orders of provisional attachment as well as the order of prohibition were not sustainable on two counts, i.e. (i) the order had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and (ii) the order had been passed without any credible materials, available for the purpose of passing such order of provisional attachments. The order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner, so far as the immovable property was concerned, was hereby quashed and set aside.
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachments under Section 83 of the CGST Act to the Assistant Commissioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
