Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (1) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted in Annexure-A1 along with applicable interest forthwith; and C. Pass any such other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-Company was incorporated on 12.10.1994. Subsequently, one more private limited company in the name and style M/s. Xylem Resource Management Private Limited Company (XRMPL) was incorporated on 28.09.2007. It is an undisputed fact and matter of record that Gautam Chowdhury, one of the Directors of the petitioner-Company also happens to be one of the Directors of XRMPL. 4. On 01.08.2023, respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the KGST Act to the aforesaid Company, XRMPL, which culminated in the adjudication order dated 29.11.2023 confirming payment made against XRMPL in pursuance of the order dated 29.11.2023. In pursuance of the said order, the respondents did not take any steps to recover the amount from the aforesaid X....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....recovery of dues from the petitioner-Company by purporting to lift the corporate veil, which is impermissible in law. 8. Under these circumstances, in the case of SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited (supra), this Court held as under: "In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and quash the following: "ANNEXURE-C: Impugned communication issued by the Respondent No. 2 on 05.12.2023 in GEXCOM/ADT/CAG/21/2023-CGST-RANGE-E-DIV-8-COMMRTE-Bengaluru(E). ANNEXURE-E: Impugned notice dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner's bank under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act in GST DRC-13 in Notice No.02/2023-24 (DRC-13) and DIN: 20240757000000000D2A. ANNEXURE-H: Impugned order/ communication dated 08.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 in DIN:20241157000000666C A4 for the period July-2017 to March-2018." ii. To issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 2 to lift the attachment placed on the bank Account No.32....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act to the State Bank of India blocking/freezing the Bank account for the alleged demand in a sum of Rs. 64,49,778/- is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice apart from being vitiated on account of non following of prescribed law prior to issuing notice invoking Section 79 of the CGST Act and as such, the impugned order at Annexure-E deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent on instructions submits that respondent has followed the procedure prescribed in law before issuing the notice, which does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides with regard to compliance/non compliance of the mandatory prescribed by the CGST Act prior to issue of notice, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the alleged demand made in Annexure-E, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 on 14.10.2024 and to proceed further in accordance with law....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4." 5. It is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that, in pursuant of the aforesaid order dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure-H), the petitioner has not submitted its reply to the same and the respondents have not proceed further in the matter. 6. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by the petitioner in the present petition in support of its claim, having regard to undisputed fact that the petitioner has not submitted its reply / response to the impugned communication at Annexure-H dated 08.11.2024, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition, directing the petitioner to submit its reply / response to the impugned communication at Annexure-H dated 08.11.2024 and by further directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the said reply and documents etc., produced by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is hereby disposed of; b) The petitioner is hereby directed to submit its reply/ response along with relevant documents if any to the impugned communication issued by the respondent No. 2 at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that he did not hold any money for or on account of the person in default, at the time the notice was served on him, nor is the money demanded or any part thereof, likely to become due to the said person or be held for or on account of such person, nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to require the person on whom the notice has been served to pay to the Government any such money or part thereof. 7. In the present case, the impugned notice though issued under Section 79(1)(c) was not addressed to the petitioner but the same is addressed to the Branch Manager of the 3rd respondent-Bank at Gurugram. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner does not have any bank account at Gurugram and the bank account referred to in the impugned notice is with the Mulund Branch. The petitioner has also pleaded that no amount is due and payable to M/s. Durga Madhab Panda (Urneed Online Retail) which is allegedly liable to pay GST dues to the extent of Rs. 30.19 crores. 8. At this stage, we do not propose to examine the factual controversies or the rival factual contentions. Suffice to mention that Section 79 contemplates a notice to a person from whom the money is....