Case Title | Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot vs The State Tax Officer |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice R.Suresh Kumar & Justice R.Vijaykumar |
Citation | 2022 (5) GSTPanacea 354 HC Madras W.A.(MD) No.481 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 26-May-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Anandha Rajagopal |
Council for Respondent | S.R.A.Ramachandran |
Section | Section 79 & 83 of the Act |
In Favour of | In Favour of Respondent |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Suresh Kumar & Justice R.Vijaykumar has held that Insofar as the order impugned before the Writ Court, dated 20.11.2021 i.e., Form GST DRC-16 is concerned, though it has been mentioned as if it was issued under Section 79 of the Goods and Service Tax Act. Therefore, merely because of the wrong quoting of the provision, the order impugned before the Writ Court cannot be successfully assailed by the appellant, as the law is well settled in this regard. Writ Appeal is dismissed.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the said writ petition, the proceedings issued by the revenue in Form GST DRC-16, dated 20.11.2021 to attach the property of the writ petitioner was under challenge.
Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a point that in the earlier round of litigation, three assessment orders were under challenge in W.P(MD).Nos.17880, 17885 and 17886 of 2020. Those writ petitions were decided by a common order dated 08.12.2022 by the Writ Court, under which, in each case conditional order was passed, by which, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and on such deposit, the matter can be remitted back for reconsideration by the Assessing Authority.
The said miscellaneous petitions were disposed of, by thus, the conditional order passed by the learned Single Judge at the first instance though belatedly has been complied with by depositing the said amount in respect of each of the assessment year.
Therefore, the natural corollary would be that, the Assessing Authority has to reassess and complete the assessment for the said three assessment years and to pass the final orders. In this regard, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, personal hearing sought for, that was also given. However, before passing an order under the reassessment process, now the impugned proceedings under Form GST DRC-16 had been issued on 20.11.2021.
Therefore, challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed on the ground that before completing the reassessment process as directed by the Writ Court in the first round of litigation as confirmed by the Division Bench, now invoking the provisions of Section 79 of the GST Act, the attachment GST DRC-16 has been issued, that is a wrong order, though attachment proceedings can be initiated by the revenue, only after completing the reassessment process, as directed by Court.
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that Insofar as the order impugned before the Writ Court, dated 20.11.2021 i.e., Form GST DRC-16 is concerned, though it has been mentioned as if it was issued under Section 79 of the Goods and Service Tax Act.
Court find that such attachment order can be construed only as a provisional attachment order made under Section 83 of the said Act. Section 83 enable the revenue to issue provisional attachment order to protect revenue in certain cases and if such orders are issued that will be valid for one year, within which, if the assessment process is completed based on which further proceedings can be initiated by the revenue.
Therefore, merely because of the wrong quoting of the provision, the order impugned before the Writ Court cannot be successfully assailed by the appellant, as the law is well settled in this regard. Non-quoting of the provision of law or wrong quoting of the same may not vitiate the proceedings on that ground itself.
Reassessment process is completed and orders are passed, depending upon the outcome of the same, the further action pursuant to the impugned order i.e., provisional attachment order can very well be decided.
With these observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Therefore, merely because of the wrong quoting of the provision, the order impugned before the Writ Court cannot be successfully assailed by the appellant, as the law is well settled in this regard. Non-quoting of the provision of law or wrong quoting of the same may not vitiate the proceedings on that ground itself. reassessment process is completed and orders are passed, depending upon the outcome of the same, the further action pursuant to the impugned order i.e., provisional attachment order can very well be decided.
With these observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected CMP(MD) No.4492 of 2022 is closed.
Download PDF:
Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot
For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court