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 Allows Fresh Orders of Provisional Attachment Under Section 83</h1> <h3>M/s. Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., M/s. Corandum Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., M/s. Cuprite Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> M/s. Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., M/s. Corandum Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., M/s. Cuprite Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2020 ... Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, and Additional Director General, DGGI to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.2. Validity of an order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, after the expiry of one year.3. Authority to issue fresh or multiple orders of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue A: Competence of Officers to Pass Orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017Arguments by Petitioners:- The petitioners argued that Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017, only empowers the 'Commissioner' to attach property provisionally.- They contended that 'Commissioner' as defined in Section 2(24) of the CGST Act, 2017, does not include the Principal Additional Director General or Additional Director General.Arguments by Respondents:- The respondents argued that Section 3(c) and 3(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, equate the 'Principal Commissioner of Central Tax' with the 'Principal Additional Director General of Central Tax' and the 'Commissioner of Central Tax' with the 'Additional Director General of Central Tax'.- They further argued that Section 5(2) allows an officer of central tax to exercise the powers conferred on any other officer subordinate to him.Court's Analysis:- The court found that Section 3 of the CGST Act, 2017, clearly equates the positions of the Principal Commissioner and Principal Additional Director General, as well as the Commissioner and Additional Director General.- Section 5(2) allows the superior officer to exercise the powers of a subordinate officer, thus validating the orders passed by the Principal Additional Director General and Additional Director General.Conclusion:- The court held that both officers are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the issue was decided in favor of the Revenue.Issue B: Validity of an Order Passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, After the Expiry of One YearArguments by Petitioners:- The petitioners argued that the provisional attachment order dated 5th June 2018 ceased to have any effect after one year, as per Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.- They contended that the authorities acted illegally by not de-freezing the accounts after one year and by issuing a fresh order on 31st October 2019 without proper service.Arguments by Respondents:- The respondents admitted the error of not issuing fresh orders within time but argued that the investigation was ongoing, and the delay was inadvertent.Court's Analysis:- The court found that the authorities acted illegally by keeping the provisional attachments in effect beyond the one-year period without issuing a fresh order or informing the bank.- Such actions violated the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.Conclusion:- The court held that the actions of the authorities were illegal and imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on the respondent authorities to be paid to each of the three petitioner companies.Issue C: Authority to Issue Fresh or Multiple Orders of Provisional Attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017Arguments by Petitioners:- The petitioners argued that Section 83 does not provide for the issuance of fresh orders of provisional attachment after the expiry of one year.- They relied on various judgments to support the argument that fiscal statutes should be strictly interpreted.Arguments by Respondents:- The respondents argued that there is no bar under Section 83 preventing the issuance of fresh orders of provisional attachment.- They cited judgments from the Gujarat High Court, which allowed fresh orders of provisional attachment under similar provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.Court's Analysis:- The court distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioners, noting that they did not address the issue of fresh orders of provisional attachment.- The court agreed with the respondents' interpretation, noting that Section 83 does not explicitly prohibit fresh orders after the expiry of one year.- The court emphasized that a fresh order should be issued only after a fresh review and assessment of the circumstances.Conclusion:- The court held that fresh orders of provisional attachment could be issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the issue was decided in favor of the Revenue.Summary of Court's Findings:1. The Principal Additional Director General and Additional Director General are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.2. The provisional attachment order ceases to be effective after one year, and the authorities' failure to de-freeze the accounts or issue a fresh order within this period was illegal.3. Fresh orders of provisional attachment can be issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, after the expiry of the initial one-year period, provided there is a fresh review and assessment of the circumstances.Epilogue:The court emphasized the importance of balancing the drastic measures under the GST Act, 2017, with the rights of the taxpayers, and highlighted the responsibility of government officials to act within the bounds of the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
