Case Law Details
Uflix Industries Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Present writ petition has been filed challenging the attachment orders dated 18th March, 2020 and 10th June, 2020 passed by respondent no. 3 attaching the bank account of the Petitioner on the grounds that they have been issued without jurisdiction as well as authority of law and in violation of principles of natural justice.
In the present writ petition, it has been averred that that there are no proceedings pending against the Petitioner, which is prerequisite for exercise of power under section 83 of the CGST Act. The orders of provisional attachment have been passed by the respondent no. 3 who is from CGST, Delhi (East), whereas the petitioner’s jurisdictional office is Range 10, CGST, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, it is submitted that the officers from CGST, Delhi (East) did not have the power or jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding against the petitioner under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Yesterday, after extensive arguments, learned counsel for petitioner had stated that the petitioner was willing to offer a bank guarantee to the respondent No.3 of a nationalised bank of the amount in dispute claimed to be fraudulent availment of ITC i.e. Rs.60,08,750/- in terms of communication dated 10.06.2020 issued by the Respodent, placed on record as annexure P5 to the petition.
Today, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 states that he has instruction not to accept the bank guarantee. He insists on payment in cash of the entire disputed amount. He further submits that the amount claimed in the communication is tentative and is subject to further investigation and verification which is presently underway.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
