Case Law Details
Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is before the court aggrieved by two communications both dated 18th March, 2021 issued by the Principal Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Mumbai (“DGGI”) provisionally attaching petitioner’s bank accounts maintained with respondents No. 5 and 6.
2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Rafiq Dada appearing along with Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior advocate, submits that a very drastic order has been passed affecting the petitioner severely stating that the petitioner has a staff of about 800-1000 employees. They have to be maintained, their salaries are required to be paid. He submits that the matter would emerge to be revenue neutral. The orders do not have any foundation. He submits that having regard to that dire consequences are being faced by the petitioner, it would be imperative that petitioner be able to operate bank accounts to bear necessary expenses over salary.
3. Mr. Pradeep Jetly, learned senior counsel for the Respondents submits that it is not the case that the attachment orders have been passed without any authority. Action has been taken pursuant to section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST). The Petitioner has remedy under Rule 159(5) to object to the orders. He submits that the D.G.G.I. had initiated inquiry to verify the correctness of payments of goods and services taxes by the petitioner. It transpires that the petitioner has received taxable services from a concern located outside India without any consideration as per schedule I of C.G.S.T Act, 2017 and as such the petitioner would be liable to pay tax on import of services. He further refers to certain statements and submits certain aspects have also come to the fore lending substance to the purpose underlying the investigation. He submits that a huge revenue to the tune of Rs. 78.91 crores is at stake in the matter which the petitioner does not intend to bear. He submits that looking at the scenario, it would not be feasible to recover dues from tax payer, as the petitioner is in the process of closing its business.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
