Radha Krishna Industries VS state Of Himachal pradeash

This appeal addresses crucial issues related to the interaction between citizens and fiscal authorities, specifically focusing on the application of goods and services tax (GST) legislation. The case involves interpreting a specific provision from Himachal Pradesh’s tax laws that empowers the Commissioner to impose provisional attachments on an assessee’s property, including bank accounts. Such provisional attachments can be ordered if the Commissioner believes it is necessary to protect government revenue.

The central question is the extent of this power and the safeguards in place to protect citizens from potential abuse. The court must navigate this interpretation carefully to balance the need for effective tax administration with the protection of individual rights. This involves ensuring that the use of provisional attachment is fair both substantively and procedurally, aligning with the rule of law principles.

In its interpretation, the court must ensure that the statutory powers are exercised in a manner that is just and equitable, maintaining the integrity of the legislative intent while safeguarding citizens from arbitrary or unfair treatment. The resolution of these issues will impact how the tax laws are applied and how they balance governmental interests with individual rights.

This appeal concerns a judgment and order dated January 1, 2021, by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition challenged orders of provisional attachment, but the High Court ruled that an alternative remedy was available.

The appellant contested the orders issued on October 28, 2020, by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Parwanoo. These orders provisionally attached the appellant’s receivables from its customers, invoking Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 159 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of maintainability, stating that the appellant had an “alternative and efficacious remedy” of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the HPGST Act.

This appeal arises from a judgment dated January 1, 2021, by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, which challenged orders of provisional attachment, on the grounds that an alternative remedy was available.

The appellant contested the orders issued on October 28, 2020, by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Parwanoo. These orders provisionally attached the appellant’s receivables from its customers. The provisional attachment was executed under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 159 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to maintainability, asserting that the appellant had an “alternative and efficacious remedy” available through an appeal under Section 107 of the HPGST Act.

The core issue in this case is whether the provisional attachment orders issued on October 28, 2020, align with the conditions outlined in Section 83 of the HPGST Act. Resolving this issue requires the court to interpret the substantive and procedural aspects of this power. A preliminary question is whether the High Court was correct in determining that the provisional attachment could not be challenged through a petition under Article 226.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: