2021-TIOL-1929-HC-AHM-GST

Mahavir Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Form GST DRC-07 order was passed on 16.03.2020 by which the authority has fixed liability to the tune of Rs.3,56,15,507/- only towards penalty, to be paid by writ applicant - Petitioner has challenged this order by filing an appeal before first appellate authority - The short point for consideration is that after passing order in form GST DRC-07, whether the authority could have passed an order of provisional attachment of property under Section 83 of GST Act - There is no question of invoking Section 83 of the Act for the purpose of provisional attachment once the final order in form GST DRC-07 is passed - The plain reading of sub clause 3 of Section 79 of the Act would indicate that if any amount of tax, interest or penalty is payable by a person to the Government under any of the provision of this Act or the Rule then such amount can be recovered by a proper Officer of State Tax or the Union Territory as the case may be, as if it were an arrear of State Tax or the Union Territory Tax - Its like recovery under the Bombay Land Revenue Code - This is possible or rather permissible only after proper attachment of any property of petitioner - This attachment has nothing to do with the provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act - For the purpose of sub clause 3, the attachment is permissible even under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code - The impugned order of provisional attachment purported to have been passed under Section 83 of the Act could be said to be without jurisdiction - The same is hereby quashed and set aside: HC

- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1928-HC-MP-GST

Pyarelal Galar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

GST - The petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders wherein the tax and penalty has been imposed on petitioner under GST Act, 2017 - The appeal preferred by petitioner under Section 107 of GST Act, 2017 has been dismissed without hearing the petitioner as no one had appeared on behalf of them on the date of hearing - The impugned order by which appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by respondent was not communicated to them by its local counsel - The absence of petitioner's counsel was even observed by respondent while passing the order and therefore, the said order came to the knowledge of petitioner after a long period of time - An opportunity granted to the petitioner to appear before appellate authority and the appellate authority shall pass a fresh order: HC

- Matter listed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1927-HC-MAD-CUS

Rayavarapu Sri Devi Vs Pr.CC

Cus - The petitioner who is a holder of Malaysian Passport was intercepted by Customs officials at the time of departure in Chennai Anna International Airport and it is alleged that foreign currencies were recovered from hand baggage and checked in baggage - It is not necessary to dilate further on facts and suffice to say that this culminated in an order dated 20.08.2020, made by Commissioner (A) - The petitioner and the Customs Department have filed statutory revisions under Section 129DD of 'Customs Act, 1962' and this Court is informed by both sides without any disputation or disagreement that both the revisions are pending - The petitioner is ready to pay redemption fine and penalty as ordered by Appellate Authority and he should be permitted to redeem the seized alleged contraband - No stay has been granted and unless the stay petition is decided one way or the other, the dead lock cannot be resolved - The stay petition is pending before Revisional Authority is the common say of both sides - The respondent is directed to dispose of stay petition within three weeks on its own merits and in accordance with law: HC

- Writ Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT