In the case of Neutron Steel Trading v The Commissioner CGST, Central Ex Commissionerate, Delhi west and Ors., Mr Manmohan J. and Mr Sanjeev Narula J. directed the respondent to treat current writ petition as an objection under Rule 159(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and decide the same within a week by way of a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with Aforesaid directions writ petition was disposed of.
The Present writ petition was filed challenging a provisional attachment dated 14.08.2020 issued by respondent no. 1 to petitioner’s bankers.
Arguments Before Court
The Counsel for the petitioner stated that in the present case the sine qua non is absent for exercise of power under section 83 of CGST Act, there’s no pending proceeding under sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of CGST Act. learned counsel for the respondent, Mr Harpreet Singh, states that he has not yet been served with all the annexures filed along with the writ petition.
Following the judgement in case of Watermelon Management Services Private Limited vs. The Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Delhi (East) & Anr. (2020) it was observed that there’s a similarity to in the current and followed cases. The respondent was directed to treat current writ petition as an objection under Rule 159(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and decide the same within a week by way of a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel for Petitioner was directed to serve another copy of the writ petition along with all annexures to Mr Harpreet Singh during the day. With aforesaid directions, the present writ petition was disposed of.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.