This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
When petitioner was not a fly by night operator, why bank accounts attached: HC ask Dept
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Mono Steel India Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Gujarat High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
Mono Steel India Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
1. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that for recovery of a sum of rupees three crore and odd, six bank accounts of the petitioner have been provisionally attached by issuing notices under section 83 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to the concerned banks. It was submitted that the show cause notices have been issued on 21st and 26th December, 2018 and immediately thereafter, the orders of provisional attachment have been made. The learned advocate has submitted a ...





