2021 (6) TMI 301 - HC - GST

Interim Order Halts Revenue Actions on Refund Demands

M/s ANABOND LTD. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS., THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

The Court issued an interim order directing Revenue Authorities not to act on demand notices for refund and bank account attachment. The order restrained ... Release of attached bank properties - Validity of the impugned notice raising a demand for refund of 50% of the amount of the GST which was refunded earlier to the petitioner along with interest (taking the base of which the release of attached bank property was sought) - HELD THAT:- A similar matter in M/S KAMAKHYA POWER SOLUTIONS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ASSAM [2021 (6) TMI 153 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] is pending before this Court in which this Court had passed an interim order on 09.04.2021 staying a similar demand notice as well restraining action for attachment of the Bank Account of the claimant. In that view of the matter, similar interim order is passed, directing, the Revenue Authorities, in the interim, not to act upon the aforesaid demand notice dated 01.01.2021 as well as the notice dated 22.04.2021for attaching/freezing the Bank Account of the petitioner. Accordingly, the HDFC Bank authorities as well as the other respondents shall not remit the amount lying in the account of the petitioner to the GST authorities in terms of the notice dated 22.04.2021. List after three weeks. Issues:Challenge to validity of impugned notice for refund demand, non-consideration of special rate request, challenge to subsequent order for bank account attachment.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an impugned notice dated 01.01.2021 demanding a refund of Rs. 6,47,530, claimed to be 50% of the earlier refunded GST amount, along with interest. The petitioner contended that the Revenue Authority did not consider their request for fixing a special rate before issuing the demand notice. Additionally, the petitioner contested an order dated 22.04.2021, which led to HDFC Bank initiating the process to attach the petitioner's bank account used for various expenses, including employee salaries.The Court noted that a similar matter, WP(C) No.2431/2021, was pending, where an interim order was passed on 09.04.2021 staying a similar demand notice and restraining bank account attachment. The Standing Counsel, GST acknowledged this order. Consequently, the Court issued a similar interim order directing Revenue Authorities not to act on the demand notices dated 01.01.2021 and 22.04.2021 for bank account attachment. The HDFC Bank and other respondents were instructed not to remit funds from the petitioner's account to GST authorities as per the notice dated 22.04.2021.The Standing Counsel, GST informed the Court that the demand notice regarding the petitioner's request for a special rate was under examination and likely to be resolved within four weeks. As a result, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner based on the demand notice until the Revenue Authorities completed their assessment. The Court acknowledged this submission and listed the case for further hearing after three weeks.