Case Law Details
Sidhivinayak Chemtech Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner CGST (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High court held that attachment of bank account under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 merely on the basis of suspicion and without any tangible material is unsustainable.
Facts- The petitioner company was incorporated on 05.09.2012, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and claims that it is engaged in the trade of industrial chemicals relating to the pesticide industry.
The petitioner has two principal places of business. One in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the other in Haryana. It is registered with the GST Department for its principal place of business in Uttar Pradesh for its place of business in the State of Haryana. For carrying out the import of industrial chemicals, the petitioner has been granted Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) No.0512052859 by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
On 20.05.2022, respondent no. 2 issued a summons u/s. 70 of the CGST Act to the petitioner company’s director, Shri Raman Kumar and Shri Indresh Kumar Yadav, who is employed as a supervisor with the petitioner, to appear at the office of respondent no.1 and tender statements in connection with investigations aboutthe fraudulent use of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹36.6 crores by M/s Best Crop Science LLP and M/s Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
