TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Petition dismissed for withdrawal of provisional attachment order under Section 132 CGST Act due to lack of business knowledge</h1> Delhi HC dismissed petition for withdrawal of provisional attachment order under Section 132 CGST Act, 2017. Court found petitioner had no knowledge of ... Withdrawal of Provisional Attachment order - Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It appears that there is another entity which appears to have been floated by the same set of persons, i.e. M/s Global Suppliers; qua which as well Mr Surat Singh evidently, had no clue - It now appears that the petitioner, has no knowledge of the affairs of the petitioner concern. It is his say that the affairs of the petitioner concern were managed by Mr Ravinder Baweja. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to refer the matter to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, so that proceedings, as per law, are triggered against Mr Surat Singh - list the matter before the Registrar General on 06.09.2022. Petition disposed off. Issues involved:1. Compliance of the order dated 15.07.2022 sought by the petitioner.2. Validity of the writ petition filed by a person not managing the petitioner concern.3. Allegations of perjury against Mr. Surat Singh.4. Direction to trigger proceedings against Mr. Surat Singh under Sections 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.5. Obligation of respondents/revenue to record statements as per the Supreme Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Ors. 2021 (1) SCC 184.Compliance of the order dated 15.07.2022:The petitioner sought compliance of the order dated 15.07.2022 regarding the provisional attachment order. It was noted that the provisional attachment order dated 31.12.2019 had not been extended. The writ petition was disposed of based on this information. However, subsequent developments revealed discrepancies leading to the recall of the order dated 15.07.2022, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition.Validity of the writ petition:The writ petition, filed by a person not managing the petitioner concern, was found to be based on false premises. Mr. Surat Singh, who signed the petition and accompanying affidavit, admitted his lack of involvement in the petitioner concern's affairs. The court determined that the petition was filed at the behest of an individual not associated with the petitioner, leading to its dismissal.Allegations of perjury:Mr. Surat Singh was found to have perjured himself by providing conflicting statements. The court concluded that proceedings should be initiated against him under Sections 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Registrar General was directed to refer the matter to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for appropriate legal action.Obligation to record statements:The respondents/revenue were reminded of their obligation to record statements as per the judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Ors. 2021 (1) SCC 184. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures for recording statements, highlighting the need for compliance in this case and others.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court, including compliance with orders, validity of legal filings, allegations of perjury, legal actions against individuals, and obligations of the respondents/revenue in recording statements as per legal requirements and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
