Allowed

M. P. Enterprises and Association Ltd. Thru Director v. the Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Finace , Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2018WP/10086/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the notices dated August 30 and 31, 2018, issued by the GST Intelligence officer to attach and freeze the petitioner's account and its customer's dues. The petitioner relied on a concurrent writ petition involving identical facts. While quashing the notices, the Court directed the Revenue to retain recovered amounts pending adjudication and clarified tha

What did the court decide?

Quashing of notices dated 30 and 31 August 2018; direction to retain recovered amounts pending adjudication; confirmation that Section 73C remains invocable.

M. P. Enterprises and Association Ltd. Thru Director Vs… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp-10086-2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10086 OF 2018

¶4

M. P. Enterprises and Associates Ltd., .. Petitioner. v/s. The Union of India & Others .. Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b.UBR Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. J.B. Mishra, for the Respondents.

¶6

CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I.CHAGLA,JJ. DATE : 18^th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

At the request of the parties, this Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶9

2 This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges notices dated 30^th August, 2018 and 31^st August, 2018 issued by the Deputy Director in the office of the Director General of GST Intelligence (Respondent No.2 herein). The notice dated 30^th August, 2018 attach/ freeze Petitioner's Bank Account in Union Bank of India and Axis Bank and directing them to pay over the same into the treasury. While the notice dated 31^st August, 2018 issued to the Petitioner's customer M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., directing it pay over any dues/amounts payable to the Petitioner into the treasury. All the impugned notices have been issued under Section 87 (b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). All the above impugned notices have been issued for recovery of Service Tax, payable by the Petitioner.

1 of 2

S.R.JOSHI

wp-10086-2018

3 We have today passed an order in Writ Petition No.10085 of 2018 in M. P. Enterprises v/s. Union of India & Others (belonging to the same group), on identical notices dated 30^th August, 2018 issued to the Banker of the Petitioner therein. The undisputed position before us is that the facts and the law applicable in the above case and in this case are identical. Therefore, for the reasons indicated in our order passed today in W.P. No.10085 of 2018 (M. P. Enterprises) [supra], to quash and set aside the notice dated 30^th August, 2018, therein would equally apply to the present facts.

¶14

4 Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 30^th August, 2018 issued to Union Bank of India and Axix Bank, attaching the Petitioner's Bank Account. We also quash and set aside the notice dated 31^st August, 2018 issued to M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., However, as submitted by Mr. Raichandnani, on instructions, the amounts which have already been received by the Revenue, consequent to the notices dated 30^th August, 2018 and 31^st August, 2018 would be continued to be retained by the Respondent till the passing of an adjudication order on the show cause notice dated 8^th September,, 2018.

¶15

5 It is also made clear that the quashing of the impugned notices dated 30^th August, 2018 and 31^st August, 2018 will not prevent the Revenue from invoking Section 73C of the Act, if thought fit by the Revenue in the facts of this case, in accordance with law.

¶16

6 Writ Petition disposed of in the above terms. No order as to

¶17

costs.

¶18

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

S.R.JOSHI

M. P. Enterprises and Association Ltd. Thru Director v. the Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Finace , Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. P. Enterprises and Association Ltd. Thru Director v. the Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Finace , Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs M/S. Sampatrao Deshmukh Oos Utpadak Todni and Vahtuk Sahakari Sanstha

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Nashik-Ii Commissionerate Vs M/S Nashik Forge Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate Vs Acc Limited.

M. P. Enterprises Thru Partner Vs the Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Finace , Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

The Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai VII Vs Crescendo Associates

The Commissioner of Cgst and Cx, Thane Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (Tractor Division)