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 Grants Provisional Release of Funds with Security Measures for Petitioner</h1> <h3>Uflix Industries Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> Uflix Industries Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2020 (40) G. S. T. L. 313 (Del.) Issues:Challenge to attachment orders under CGST Act, jurisdictional conflict, offer of bank guarantee, refusal to accept bank guarantee, provisional release of funds, retention of security, impact of debit freeze on business operations.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging attachment orders issued by respondent no. 3 under the CGST Act. The petitioner contests the jurisdiction of the officers from CGST, Delhi (East) to initiate proceedings as the petitioner's jurisdictional office is in Range 10, CGST, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner argues that the attachment orders lack jurisdiction, authority of law, and violate principles of natural justice. The petitioner offers a bank guarantee to the respondent no. 3 as a resolution to the dispute regarding the claimed fraudulent availment of ITC.During the proceedings, the respondent no. 3 insists on cash payment of the disputed amount, rejecting the offer of a bank guarantee. The respondent no. 3 claims that the amount in question is tentative and subject to further investigation. The court grants four weeks for the respondents to file counter-affidavits and schedules the next hearing for September 10, 2020.Considering the impact of the attachment on the petitioner's business operations, the court directs the respondent no. 3 to retain a specific amount from the petitioner's bank account as security. The court orders the retention of Rs. 45 lacs from the current bank account as security and provisionally releases the debit freeze instructions, allowing the petitioner to continue business operations. The petitioner is directed to deposit a bank guarantee for the balance amount, subject to renewal and further orders. The security amount and the bank guarantee will be retained by respondent no. 3 pending adjudication of the final demand, with rights and contentions of both parties left open.The judgment emphasizes the need to safeguard the interests of both parties while ensuring the continuation of business activities for the petitioner. The court's decision strikes a balance by providing a provisional resolution to the dispute, allowing the petitioner to operate while securing the disputed amount for further adjudication.
TaxTMI 