Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube
gst-panacea-logo
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube

H.M. Industrial (P.) Ltd. VS Commissioner, CGST

Case Title

H.M. Industrial (P.) Ltd. VS Commissioner, CGST

Court

Gujarat High Court

Honorable judges

Justice Harsha Devani

Justice A. P. Thaker

Citation

2019 (02) GSTpanacea 38 HC Gujarat

R/Special Civil Application No. 1160 Of 2019

Judgement Date

21-February 2019

The petitioner, through his learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nirzar Desai, has waived the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requests the court to direct the respondent to release all of the petitioner’s bank accounts, specifically those detailed in paragraph 12 of the petition. This request follows a previous court order dated February 6, 2019, where the court instructed the respondent to immediately release the attachment on the petitioner’s cash credit account numbered 02950500012441, which is held with the Bank of Baroda at the Kapadvanj Branch in Kaira.

The petitioner, through Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nirzar Desai, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent to release several bank accounts held by the petitioner. Initially, on 06.02.2019, the Court had directed the release of one cash credit account with the Bank of Baroda, Kapadvanj Branch. Subsequently, on 07.02.2019, the Court ordered the release of several other bank accounts as the attachment orders were deemed unauthorized. As a result, attachment over those accounts was lifted.

Now, the petitioner seeks the release of attachment over the remaining bank accounts, which include current accounts with the Bank of Baroda, Kapadwanj, accounts with Axis Bank in Nadiad, and accounts with HDFC Bank in Kapadwanj. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. A.S. Mishra, presented the case before the court along with Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nirzar Desai representing the respondent.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. A.S. Mishra, seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting the respondent to release the attachment on various bank accounts. Previously, the court had ordered the release of some accounts due to unauthorized attachment. Now, the petitioner seeks the release of additional accounts, arguing that they are also wrongly attached.

Mr. Mishra argues that the petitioner has already reversed a significant amount of input tax credit and paid the initial GST demand. Thus, they contend that the attachment over the remaining accounts, held across different banks, is unjustified.

Mr. Nirzar Desai, representing the respondent, waives the service of notice of the rule. The court hears both sides and considers the petitioner’s argument regarding the reversal of input tax credit. The matter pertains to commercial transactions involving multiple enterprises and substantial financial implications.

In summary, the petitioner seeks relief from the court to release certain bank accounts from attachment, arguing that they have complied with tax obligations. The court will decide whether to grant the requested relief based on the arguments presented by both parties.

The petitioner, through Mr. A.S. Mishra, seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aiming to direct the respondent to release the remaining bank accounts from attachment. Initially, several accounts were attached by the respondent, but through previous court orders, some were released due to lack of legal authority for attachment.

Now, the petitioner wants the release of additional accounts, including those held with Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank, and HDFC Bank. Mr. Mishra argues that the petitioner has already reversed a significant amount of input tax credit and paid a substantial sum towards the GST demand. However, Mr. Nirzar Desai, representing the respondent, contends that while a considerable sum has been paid, there remains an outstanding amount, currently standing at Rs. 16.24 crores, with Rs. 14.62 crores being due at the time of the previous order under section 83 of the CGST Act.

In summary, the petitioner is seeking relief from the court to release the remaining bank accounts from attachment, while the respondent asserts that there’s still an outstanding amount owed by the petitioner.

The summary of the legal proceedings involving Mr. Nirzar Desai, as learned Senior Standing Counsel, and the petitioner can be outlined as follows:

  1. Mr. Nirzar Desai, representing the respondent, waived the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

  2. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondent to release all bank accounts mentioned in the petition.

  3. Earlier court orders directed the release of certain bank accounts held by the petitioner, citing lack of legal authority for their attachment.

  4. The petitioner now seeks the release of the remaining bank accounts, including those held with various banks such as Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank, and HDFC Bank.

  5. Arguments were presented by Mr. A.S. Mishra, advocate for the petitioner, stating that a substantial amount of input tax credit had been reversed and initial GST demands had been paid. However, Mr. Nirzar Desai, representing the respondent, stated that a certain amount had been paid, either by reversal or otherwise, but a significant sum remained outstanding.

  6. The respondent’s provisional attachment orders were made under section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2018 (CGST Act), which allows for such actions during proceedings under sections 67, 73, or 74 of the Act.

This summary captures the main points of the legal dispute between the petitioner and the respondent regarding the release of bank accounts and the outstanding GST payments.

Download PDF:sssss

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law:

Company Policy

GET STARTED​

IMPORTANT LINKS

Weekly Newsletter