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 dismisses petition, grants liberty to file objections under Rule 159(5) by set date. (5)</h1> <h3>Ramakrishna Electro Components Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Anr.</h3> Ramakrishna Electro Components Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Anr. - 2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 159 (Del.) Issues:1. Direction to cancel DRC-03 for reversal of Input Tax Credit2. Quashing of proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act3. Quashing of attachment order of bank accounts4. Return of seized documents under Section 67(2)Analysis:1. The writ petition sought various reliefs, including the cancellation of DRC-03 for the reversal of Input Tax Credit, quashing of proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act, and return of seized documents. The matter was adjourned multiple times to allow for the filing of additional documents and affidavits by both parties.2. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as an alternate remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules was available to the petitioner. The petitioner cited judgments from the High Courts of Gujarat and Bombay to support their case, emphasizing discrepancies in tax payments and Input Tax Credit availed.3. The Court noted the requirement under Rule 159(5) for objections to be filed within seven days but held that the time limit was directory, not mandatory, based on a previous ruling. The petitioner then sought to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to their rights, opting to pursue the remedy under Rule 159(5) with a time-bound disposal request.4. The respondents agreed to dispose of any objections filed by the petitioner within four weeks, subject to the petitioner's cooperation in providing necessary information. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to file objections under Rule 159(5) by a specified date and directing the Commissioner to dispose of them promptly.5. The Court also addressed the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts, allowing the petitioner to avail further overdraft in one account for day-to-day functioning. It clarified that all contentions remained open to the parties, with remedies available in case of dissatisfaction with the order passed under Rule 159(5).6. Lastly, the petitioner informed the Court about the reversal of a tax value before the concerned authority, which would be considered in the objections to be filed. The Court ensured that the petitioner's rights were protected throughout the proceedings, with provisions for further actions based on the outcome of the objections filed under Rule 159(5).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
