Radha Krishan Industries VS State of Himachal Pradesh

This appeal addresses crucial public issues concerning the interaction between citizens, businesses, and the fiscal administration. The Himachal Pradesh legislation on goods and services tax authorizes taxation authorities to impose a provisional attachment on the properties of the assessee, including bank accounts, with the Commissioner empowered to order such attachment if deemed necessary to protect government revenue. The case involves determining the scope of this power and the safeguards available to citizens. The court must ensure a fair exercise of statutory powers, balancing the need to prevent arbitrary actions against fulfilling the legislative purpose of provisional attachment authority. The rule of law requires substantive fairness, procedural fairness, and fair application of the law, all of which must be considered in interpreting the tax statute. The appeal arises from a High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 1 January 2021, where a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed on the grounds of an available alternate remedy.

This appeal addresses significant public importance issues involving the interface between citizens, businesses, and fiscal administration, specifically the power of taxation authorities to impose a provisional attachment on the properties of an assessee, including bank accounts, under legislation enacted for the levy of goods and services tax in Himachal Pradesh, where the Commissioner can order provisional attachment of the assessee’s property if it is necessary to protect government revenue, raising questions about the ambit of this power and the safeguards available to citizens; the court must ensure a fair exercise of statutory powers, balancing the need to protect citizens from arbitrary power exercises while fulfilling the legislative purpose, and ensuring the rule of law is substantively and procedurally fair and applied fairly, which will be addressed in interpreting the tax statute in this case, arising from a judgment dated 1 January 2021 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which dismissed a writ petition challenging orders of provisional attachment issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise on 28 October 2020 under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 159 of Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, based on the view that an alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 107 of the HPGST Act was available, the case’s issue being whether the provisional attachment orders are in consonance with Section 83’s conditions, requiring the court to interpret the substantive and procedural content of this power, and whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the provisional attachment could not be challenged in a petition under Article 226, arising from the context that the appellant manufactures lead according to specific client requirements and operates a factory in Himachal Pradesh, having been in the business since 2008, and was impacted by the introduction of the Goods and Services tax.

This appeal involves significant public issues concerning the interaction between citizens, businesses, and fiscal administration. Legislation for levying goods and services tax gives taxation authorities the power to impose a provisional attachment on the assessee’s properties, including bank accounts. The Himachal Pradesh legislation in question allows the Commissioner to order provisional attachment of the assessee’s property if deemed necessary to protect government revenue. The key questions are the scope of this power and the safeguards for citizens. The court must ensure the fair exercise of statutory powers, balancing citizens’ concerns over arbitrary power with the legislative intent behind provisional attachment. The rule of law in a constitutional framework requires substantive, procedural, and application fairness. This appeal arises from a 1 January 2021 judgment by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging provisional attachment orders on the grounds of available alternative remedies. The appellant contested the 28 October 2020 orders by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Parwanoo, which provisionally attached the appellant’s receivables from customers under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 159 of Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The High Court held that the appellant had an alternative and efficacious remedy through an appeal under Section 107 of the HPGST Act. The core issue is whether the provisional attachment orders align with the conditions in Section 83 of the HPGST Act, requiring an interpretative analysis of the power’s substantive and procedural content. Additionally, whether the High Court rightly concluded that the provisional attachment couldn’t be challenged under Article 226 is questioned. The appellant manufactures lead per client specifications, operating a factory in Meerpur Gurudwara, Kala-Amb, Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, and has been in this business since 2008. After GST’s introduction, the appellant registered under GST with effect from 1 July 2017. On 3 October 2018, the third respondent issued a notice under Section 74 of the HPGST Act and the CGST Act, requiring the appellant to produce specific documents on 9 October 2018. The appellant appeared and submitted original tax invoices on 15 October 2018. On 10 October 2018, a ‘detection case’ was registered against GM Powertech, a supplier of the appellant, under Section 74 of the HPGST Act and CGST Act and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, following a search and seizure under Section 67 of the HPGST Act and CGST Act. GM Powertech’s partners were arrested on 3 December 2018 for fraudulent input tax credit claims from fictitious firms. The appellant received a memo via e-mail on 15 December 2018 from the third respondent to appear on 17 December 2018.

This appeal involves significant issues concerning the interaction between citizens, their businesses, and fiscal administration, particularly regarding the provisional attachment of properties under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws. Specifically, it concerns the interpretation of Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, which empowers taxation authorities to attach the property of an assessee provisionally, including bank accounts, if deemed necessary to protect government revenue. The core issues include the scope of this power and the safeguards available to protect citizens from arbitrary actions. The court must ensure that the statutory powers are exercised fairly, addressing both substantive and procedural fairness in the context of the rule of law.

The appeal stems from a judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated January 1, 2021, which dismissed a writ petition challenging provisional attachment orders. The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, contested orders issued on October 28, 2020, by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, which attached the appellant’s receivables from customers. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that an alternative remedy existed through an appeal under Section 107 of the HPGST Act.

The key issue in this case is whether the provisional attachment orders issued on October 28, 2020, comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 83 of the HPGST Act. The court will explore whether the provisional attachment can be challenged via a petition under Article 226 and assess the substantive and procedural content of the power to ensure fairness.

The factual context includes the appellant’s business activities and their interactions with tax authorities. The appellant, engaged in lead manufacturing, has been in business since 2008 and was registered under GST as of July 1, 2017. The appellant faced scrutiny and a provisional attachment of receivables due to issues related to input tax credit claims and investigations into a supplier’s fraudulent activities. Notices and orders were issued over several years, including a notable provisional attachment order on January 9, 2019, mistakenly referring to a different entity. The appellant challenged these actions, arguing procedural lapses and unjustified blocking of input tax credits.

In summary, the appeal examines the proper exercise of provisional attachment powers under GST laws and whether alternative remedies are sufficient to address the appellant’s grievances. The court will assess the fair application of these powers in light of the statutory provisions and the principles of procedural fairness.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: