SKYLIGHT MAN POWER AND HOSPITALITY SERVICES Vs THE COMMISSIONER, STATE TAXES AND EXCISE

In a legal context, Mr. Vishal Mohan, a distinguished Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, has presented a comprehensive argument regarding the petitioner’s case. He outlined that the petitioner has lodged statutory appeals concerning the assessment years of 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. This indicates that the petitioner is challenging the outcomes or decisions made by tax authorities during these specific financial periods. By initiating statutory appeals, the petitioner seeks to contest the assessments imposed on them by tax authorities during the mentioned years. This action suggests that the petitioner believes there are grounds for reconsideration or adjustment of the tax assessments in question. Mr. Vishal Mohan’s submission likely delves into the specifics of each assessment year, highlighting discrepancies, legal points, or evidence supporting the petitioner’s position. Through his expertise as a Senior Counsel, he would meticulously present arguments and legal precedents to advocate for a favorable outcome for the petitioner in these statutory appeals.

Mr. Vishal Mohan, a knowledgeable Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, has presented arguments before the court regarding statutory appeals filed for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner has complied with the deposit requirements outlined in Section 107(6) of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which allows for a stay on recovery proceedings for the remaining balance, as per Section 107(7) of the Act. Despite this provision, the attached property and debtors have not been released, as they were provisionally attached under Sections 79 and 83 of the Act.

Ms. Seema Sharma, the learned Deputy Advocate General, has opposed the petitioner’s claims. She has pointed out that the petitioner’s bank accounts were de-frozen by an order dated July 17, 2022 (Annexure P-6), but the property remains attached to secure the outstanding taxes.

The crux of the matter revolves around whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s property under Sections 79 and 83 of the Act should persist after the filing of statutory appeals under Section 107. Hence, the pertinent provisions under consideration are Section 107(6) and Section 107(7) of the Act.

In a legal case, Mr. Vishal Mohan, a learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, argued that the petitioner had filed statutory appeals concerning assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner had complied with the requirement of depositing funds as per Section 107(6) of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘the Act’). According to Section 107(7) of the Act, recovery proceedings for the remaining amount should have been stayed. However, the property and debtors provisionally attached under Sections 79 and 83 of the Act were not released despite this provision.

Ms. Seema Sharma, representing the government as the learned Deputy Advocate General, opposed the petition. She argued that the petitioner’s bank accounts had already been de-frozen by an order dated July 17, 2022 (referred to as Annexure P-6), but the petitioner’s property remained attached to secure the remaining taxes.

The main issue in the case was whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s property under Sections 79 and 83 of the Act should continue after the petitioner had filed statutory appeals under Section 107 of the Act. The relevant provisions for consideration were Section 107(6) and Section 107(7) of the Act.

Section 107(6) stipulates that no appeal can be filed unless the appellant has paid the admitted amount and a certain percentage of the remaining disputed tax amount. Section 107(7) states that if the appellant has paid the amount under Section 107(6), recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed.

The petitioner had indeed filed statutory appeals and deposited the required pre-deposit amount as per Section 107(6) for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. This was confirmed by an order (Annexure P-6) dated July 17, 2022. However, the controversy arose regarding the continuation of the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s property despite the appeal filings and deposits.

The case involved interpreting the provisions of Sections 107(6) and 107(7) of the Act to determine whether the attachment of the petitioner’s property should be lifted after the appeals were filed and the deposits made.