The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Provisional Attachment Order can not be challenged through Writ Petition.
A detection case under Section 74 of Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was conducted against one of the suppliers of M/s Radha Krishan Industries, Kala-Amb, i.e. M/s GM Powertech, Kala-Amb by way of search and seizure as provided under section 67 of the HPGST/CGST Acts.
A show cause notice was issued to M/s Fujikawa Power, Bagbania, BBN Baddi regarding provisional attachment of payment of the petitioner under section 83 of the Act.
In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed representation and respondent withdrew the notice. However, after initial inquiry into the matter, evidence of tax evasion was detected and M/s GM Powertech, Kala-Amb claimed and utilized input tax credit on account of the invoices issued by the fake/fictitious firms without actual movement of goods from the fake firms.
Similarly, M/s GM Powertech also issued invoices on the same analogy to various recipients situated in the state of Himachal Pradesh including the petitioner. Consequently, respondents issued provisional attachment of the payment receivable by the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Additional Advocate General has questioned the very maintainability of this petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Mr. Puneet Bali, counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that there is alternative remedy available by way of appeal under section 107 of the GST Act issued by respondent.
However, he contended that the rule of exclusion of jurisdiction due to availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of the compulsions. He would further contend that in spite of alternative remedy.
The division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua clarified that where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act or in defiance the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or has resorted to invoke the provisions, which are repealed or where an order has been passed in total violation of the principle of natural justice, but the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person or where the statute under which the action complained of has been taken in mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field.
Therefore, the court while dismissing the plea found that the writ petition filed by M/s GM Powertech, the company against whom same and similar allegations, as have been levelled against the petitioner, has not been entertained and the company has been relegated to avail of the alternative remedy.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
