TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court modifies decision on bank account attachment under CGST Act, emphasizes structured assessment process</h1> <h3>The Principal Additional Director General, The Senior Intelligence Officer Versus M/s. Mutharamman & Co., The Branch Manager Indian Bank</h3> The Principal Additional Director General, The Senior Intelligence Officer Versus M/s. Mutharamman & Co., The Branch Manager Indian Bank - [2022] 107 G ... Issues:1. Validity of the order attaching the first respondent's bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act.2. Judicial review of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 32 of 2021 setting aside the attachment order.3. Examination of the factual and legal positions leading to the attachment order.4. Assessment of the arguments presented by both parties regarding the attachment order.5. Analysis of the observations made by the learned single Judge regarding the opinion of the second appellant.6. Modification of the order to issue a show cause notice and complete the assessment process within a specified timeframe.Issue 1: Validity of the attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST ActThe appeal challenged the order attaching the first respondent's bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, alleging fraudulent input tax credit and tax evasion by the first respondent. The appellants argued that the attachment was justified to protect government revenue based on thorough investigation and documentary evidence. The learned counsel contended that the order was in the interest of the government revenue, emphasizing the evasion of GST due to ineligible ITC availed by the first respondent.Issue 2: Judicial review of the order setting aside the attachmentThe learned single Judge set aside the attachment order, citing a lack of proper application of mind in the second appellant's opinion. The court observed that the opinion was cryptic and merely repeated the first appellant's statements. The first respondent's counsel argued that the single Judge's decision was based on factual and legal considerations, warranting no interference by the higher court. The court, after hearing both sides, modified the order to issue a show cause notice and complete the assessment process within a specified timeframe.Issue 3: Examination of the factual and legal positionsThe search conducted at the first respondent's premises revealed fraudulent activities related to input tax credit and tax evasion. The appellants contended that the investigation was initiated against a related company involved in clandestine removal of goods, leading to the first respondent availing ineligible ITC. The attachment of the bank account was based on a thorough study of documents, including GSTR2A and GSTR 1 filings.Issue 4: Assessment of arguments presented by both partiesThe appellants argued that the first respondent did not respond adequately to the summons and that the investigation was ongoing. The first respondent's counsel countered, stating that all documentary evidence was provided, and full cooperation was extended during the investigation. The court considered these arguments and modified the order to facilitate a structured process for objections and assessment.Issue 5: Analysis of the observations on the second appellant's opinionThe court noted deficiencies in the second appellant's opinion, highlighting a lack of detailed analysis and a mere repetition of the first appellant's stance. This observation influenced the decision to modify the order and ensure a more structured assessment process within a specified timeframe.Issue 6: Modification of the order for issuing a show cause notice and assessmentThe court modified the order to allow the appellants to issue a show cause notice within four weeks, followed by the first respondent filing objections and evidence within two weeks. The appellants were directed to examine the submissions and pass an assessment order based on merits within the statutory timeframe stipulated in the CGST Act, 2017. This modification aimed to streamline the assessment process and ensure a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
