TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts of the petitioner have been provisionally attached. 1.1 The details of these bank accounts, which have been provisionally attached by the respondent, are set forth hereafter. S. No. Name of the bank Account No. 1. HDFC Bank Ltd. 50100122220961 2. Standard Chartered Bank 45610028287 3. Union Bank of India 344902010001127 4. Standard Chartered Bank 24110205602 Background facts: - 2. The challenge, to the aforementioned orders, arises in the background of the following undisputed facts and circumstances. 2.1. The petitioner was acting as a director on the Board of Directors of a company, going by the name of Milkfood Ltd., between 2006 and 2008. The petitioner is also a sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., she held an equity stake of 14.33% in Milkfood Ltd. 2.7. Since the petitioner was aggrieved qua the impugned action of the respondent, she approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. Upon notice being issued, the respondent has filed its counter-affidavit. Submissions on behalf of the respondent: - 3. Mr. Harpreet Singh, who appears on behalf of the respondent, has made the following submissions:. (i) The petitioner has availed of the alternate remedy available to it under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (in short 'the Rules'), by filing objections under the said Rule, albeit during the pendency of the writ petition. Mr. Singh says that since objections, were filed during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions on behalf of the petitioner: - 4. On the other hand, Mr. Harsh Sethi, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that. the proceeding initiated against the petitioner. under Section 83 of the Act. is without jurisdiction, as the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the definition of a 'taxable person'; the taxable person being Milkfood Ltd and not the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, as this crucial jurisdictional ingredient is missing. 4.1. Mr. Sethi says that the other ingredients, provided in Section 83 of the Act, are also missing. The respondent, before triggering the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, had to satisfy itself that there was a "pending" proceeding under the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction^1. In this case, one of the jurisdictional ingredients', which is missing, is that the petitioner is not a taxable person. This aspect is borne out upon perusal of the impugned orders, which are identical. In the impugned orders, dated 07.12.2020, the respondent adverts to the fact that, Milkfood Ltd. is the taxable person. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of one of the impugned orders, appended on page 32 (which concerns the provisional attachment of bank account of the petitioner maintained with HDFC bank), is extracted hereunder: "It is to inform that M/s Milkfood Limited, having principal place of business at Bhandari House, 5th Floor, 91, Nehru Place, Delhi-110019 bearing registration number as GS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch would show that. the concerned officer, before triggering the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, had applied his mind to the other important aspect, which is, that the provision had to be taken recourse to, to protect the interest of the revenue. 5.6. In the counter-affidavit, the only aspect that the respondent has pointed out qua the petitioner is the "voluntary" statement made by her on 03.12.2020. We have alluded to what the petitioner has said in her statement, which is, in turn, gleaned from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. In our opinion, there is nothing in the statement of the petitioner, which would show, that she had anything to do with the purported illegal transaction said to have been carried out between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed copy of the judgement passed today. 8. Pending application shall stand closed. --------------- Notes:- 1. See: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, AIR 1961 SC 372: (1961) 41 ITR 191. "28. In the present case the Company contends that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 34 were not satisfied and come to the court at the earliest opportunity. There is nothing in its conduct which would justify the refusal of proper relief under Article 226. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the courts to give such relief in fit cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused wit....