Petition challenging attachment order based on excise and CGST dues dismissed for acknowledged liability and payment willingness. The court dismissed the petition challenging an attachment order based on excise dues and CGST payment demand, as the petitioner had previously ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Petition challenging attachment order based on excise and CGST dues dismissed for acknowledged liability and payment willingness.
The court dismissed the petition challenging an attachment order based on excise dues and CGST payment demand, as the petitioner had previously acknowledged the liability and expressed willingness to pay in installments. The court noted that the petitioner had accepted the liability, making it unnecessary to challenge the demand at this stage, as the opportunity for a show cause notice had passed. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
Issues: Challenge to attachment order dated 10.10.2018 based on excise dues and CGST payment demand notice dated 3.10.2018.
Analysis: The petitioner sought the quashing of the attachment order dated 10.10.2018, which was based on a notice of demand for excise dues and Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) issued on 3.10.2018. The petitioner did not dispute the demand notice but had previously filed a writ petition requesting to pay the excise dues in installments and to be granted three months to settle the CGST liability. The petitioner, in the earlier writ petition, had acknowledged the liability and expressed readiness to make payments as per the installment plan. However, the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one, indicating the petitioner's acceptance of the demand for dues. The current attachment was a consequential action following the demand notice, and the court noted that the petitioner had already accepted the liability, making it unnecessary to challenge the demand at this stage. The court emphasized that the opportunity for a show cause notice or hearing before issuing the demand had passed, and there was no basis to revisit the same. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.