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.
Issue notice.
Mr. Rajesh Gogna, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 accepts notice. They pray for and are granted four weeks to file counter-affidavits. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 10th September, 2020.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on instructions states that the Bank account attached by the Respondents has a credit balance of more than Rs. 1 crore and that an appropriate amount therefrom can be retained as a security to safeguard the interest of the revenue . He further submits that on account of debit freeze in the account, the entire business of the Petitioner has come to standstill and it is not able to make payment for items imported during the Covid19 pandemic. Having regard to the facts of the present case and since the entire disputed amount as of now is being secured by the Petitioner, respondent no. 3 is directed to retain Rs.45 lacs (Rupees Forty Five Lacs) from Current Bank Account · 919020053475555, in Axis Bank, ‘ Nehru Palace, New Delhi the attached bank account of the petitioner as a security and to provisionally release/ lift the debit freeze instructions in respect of the said attached account to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner first depositing with the respondent no. 3 a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank for the balance amount of Rs. 15,08,750/- for a initial term of one year. The bank guarantee shall be renewed and kept alive during the pendency of the present petition and shall be subject to further orders. The aforesaid amount and the bank guarantee shall be retained by the Respondent No.3 as a security which shall be subject to adjudication of the final demand. The rights and contentions of both the parties are left open.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
